With RAM prices where they are, I don't think it should be a problem getting that upgraded.
I'm concerned about storage capacity. I have 7 hot swap bays, and given the age of the 4.3 drives, I want to make sure that we're very redundant. To do this, I've decided that we need a hot spare for every configured drive. If I go with RAID 1 for the swap and logs, I'll need three disks for that, which only leaves me 4 disks for RAID 5, which, with a hot spare, gives me about 9 gigs for mailboxes. We do a lot of publishing, so large files are the norm, and I think 9 gigs will be burned through pretty quickly. If I was to upgrade to 1 gig of RAM, that should take care of a lot of the swap performance problems. Will having the E2k log on a RAID 5 volume make a large difference, or is it more of a performance tweak? Thanks, Erick ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Cornetet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:54 AM Subject: RE: Server capacity > I think you will be OK, but if at all possible, add more RAM. I have run > win2k/E2k in 256MB and just logging in and running system administrator > thrashes the disk continuously. > > The textbook says you should use two of your disks in a mirror for the > Exchange logs, but with 50 users, I don't think it will make much > difference. On the other hand, you should realize the disaster recovery > implications of having the logs and store on the same disk. > > Also, having your swap on RAID5 is going to make swapping even more > painful. More reason to add more memory. > > Maybe you should consider using two of your disks in RAID1 for your swap > and E2K logs. Use the remainder in RAID5 for everything else. > > You might also want to consider running Exchange 5.5 on NT4 - > particularly if you can't add more RAM. > > Another thing to consider (as others have mentioned) is Linux & POP3. > Use Yahoo for your "public folders" and calendars. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:15 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Server capacity > > > I know it is well beyond end-of-life, but given our financial > constraints, is it useable? I don't have the resources to do a proper > stress test to see how response times would be under a ~30-50 user load. > If it takes 45 seconds for a user to open their inbox, then I will have > a good reason to say that we need something with more muscle. I haven't > set up an Exchange server before, so I don't know what kind of load it > puts on systems. > > Erick > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Crowley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:00 PM > Subject: RE: Server capacity > > > > Even if it was, that machine is well beyond end-of-life. > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > Tech Consultant > > hp Services > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin > > Blackstone > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:05 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Server capacity > > > > > > I don't think E2k or even W2K is recommended on a Ppro system. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Erick Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 2:05 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Server capacity > > > > > > I am hoping that I can get some feedback on a server configuration. I > > have a Compaq Proliant 6500, dual PPro 200, 256 MB ram, and 7 x 4.3GB > > drives in RAID 5 with a hot spare. I want to set this system up as an > > Exchange 2000 server for about 30 local users, and another 20 via OWA. > > > The email load will be fairly heavy, and there will be a lot of use of > > > shared folders and calendars. > > > > I'm concerned about taking the time to set the server up, get Exchange > > > up and running, only to find that it's running too slowly for the > > users to be productive. I know more is better, but this is a > > non-profit with a very limited budget, so I want to make sure we have > > what we need. Is this server going to be a serious bottleneck? > > > > Thanks, > > Erick > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > 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]
