The original question didn't say anything about mass mailings to a million people, so your point that his machine was underpowered still is wrong. Do you have any more excuses for us?
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 11:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Exactly. You make a recommendation based on an appropriate solution to handle present needs in addition to future needs. Basing your buying decisions on the hope that prices would go down is like purchasing a small cap stock that trades on the ANDS. You have no idea what the prices of hardware are going to be 6 months from now. My original Exchange system has seen 3 mergers, and has continually been given new "responsibilities" without requiring additional hardware or hardware changes because I planned accordingly. One of those responsibilities added recently is to service our 1,000,000 plus donor recipients with monthly announcements from my Oracle Database. This responsibility adds quiet a significant overhead....However, it's only once a month. Of coarse, some of you might argue the overhead would be caused from the WAN connection. This could be true I suppose, however, this is not the case because I have a dedicated T3 for my mail. But hopefully you see my point. Even though the additional "overhead" may not adversely affect the amount of RAM being utilized by the Information Store it does significantly affect your Disk IO performance if not configured properly. This equates to a higher processor utilization. My recommendation takes all of this into consideration. Hopefully this answers the question pondered earlier about the dual processor role. But listen guys... I believe in democracy. It appears that the majority of you believe in the least amount to perform to current expectations. So, I will limit my opinions whenever possible on this subject. Besides, I don't want to spend what's left of my vacation creating enemies in a discussion group I wish to participate in. However, there is something to be said for disagreements. At least it allows me to contemplate a different mind set when it comes to certain issues. For this, I thank you. Thanks for your time again. Murphy -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > 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. In my experience, I have found that my upper management trusts me to recommend appropriate solutions for the simple reason that I don't waste their money by buying too big of a server for our needs. They know that it will cost less real money to buy what we need (with a bit of growth allowed) and then upgrade later when component prices have come down. If I get a great deal on some mondo equipment, great, we're golden, but otherwise I choose my money battles wisely. Also, "critical" >< "big" or in the case of your recommendation, "abso-fscking-HUGE". -Mich�le, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: <http://LadySun1969.tripod.com> The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: <http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley> Tiggercam: <http://www.tiggercam.co.uk> --------------------------------------------------------- "You're telling Chris how to unsubscribe? Now that's funny." - Andy David, July 26, 2001 --------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 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----- X-Sybari-Space: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
