That will serve you well until someone points out to your management how
much extra money you spent than you really needed.  You can fool some of
the people some of the time...

Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:35 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


I guess it depends on your situation.  If policy dictates that Exchange
Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want
to spec the system appropriately.

Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and
requires good salesmanship and good political tactics.  I would think
you guys and gals would consider this an asset.  

If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Don - lack of experience - ouch!

The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a
server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money
on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years
and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money
now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you
never know what's around the corner).

Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server
with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change
your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to
upgrade/replace your server. 

----------------------------------------------------
Tristan Gayford
Deputy Systems & Network Manager
Cranfield University at Silsoe


-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization

So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide
it's best to flame everyone else that can.

If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was
making a recommendation.  The recommendation allows for future growth of
the database and the least amount of hardware problems.  The fact that
you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience.
I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years.  What good does it do
to spec a system that barely meets your current needs?  

In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase
a system that is in your opinion an overkill....Wouldn't this be
considered an asset?  Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with
upper management. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Someone would have to be on some good drugs to over-spec a server like
that. I guess we're the unfortunate bunch with actual "real" world
budgets to work with...  ;o)

D


-----Original Message-----
From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


Ha ha ha ha LOL.

Crack pipe. Nice one Don.

Regards

Mr Louis Joyce
Network Support Analyst
Exchange Administrator
BT Ignite eSolutions




-----Original Message-----
From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 11 January 2002 14:36
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


What crack pipe are you smoking out of?  Those specs are way beyond
what's necessary!

D

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization


400 Mailboxes and 1 gig of Ram does not sound right.  Your primary
problem is hardware.

This is my minimum recommendation for your hardware requirements.

Dual Pentium III 550 +
Separate Raid Controller running in Raid 5 config.  (2 partitions
logical) 2 Gig physical memory. 3 Gig Page File on second partition Run
optimizer and move the databases and log files to 2nd partition.


-----Original Message-----
From: Frazer J Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 11:09 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: High Physical Memory Utilization


One of my colleagues recently reinstalled a 5.5 SP4 Exchange Server on
NT4 SP5 (only Exchange was reinstalled) and have noticed that the
Physical Memory Utilization sits at around 99% (prior to the rebuild it
was around 60%).  The server has about 400 mailboxes on it and has 1Gb
of physical memory and 1Gb page file.  It is the same spec as 4 other
servers in the site which all sit at around 60% utilization.  As it is a
24x7 service we offer on our server, down time is very limited.  Is
there any way I can check the performance optimizer settings without
stopping the store? Or are there any other pointers that anyone can
think of I can check?



_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]


_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives:               http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to