It should use the OST as it uses your access/configuration through Outlook to get there. At least that's seems to have worked for us. Using the ExMon program you can check for this. Run int on your Exchange server for 24 hours. Have a client using Google Desktop set to cached mode and see if they generate the ID indicating desktop search use.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:51 PM, Matteson, John H Jr USA Mr USA 25th SigBN (ITT) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't know. Since I've not run Google Desktop I'm not sure if it will > index the OST file or go over the wire to deal directly with the > Exchange database. > > > > John H. Matteson, Jr. > Systems Administrator/ITT Systems > FOB Orgun-E > Afghanistan > DSN - 318 431 8001 > VoSIP - (308) 431 - 0000 > Iridium - 717.633.3823 > > "A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group > in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among > you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the > Stars and Stripes." Woodrow Wilson > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 9:29 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > Wouldn't cached mode provide relief if this was the cause? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Milosavljevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:49 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > Hi John, > > No full text indexing of the database but a lot of staff are using > google desktop or copernic for mailbox indexing / searching. Sounds > like this may be a cause of the problem. Many thanks for your helpful > advice. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Matteson, John H Jr USA Mr USA 25th SigBN (ITT) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2008 5:13 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > Good morning Mark: > > I don't think you have missed anything. Trying to run 500 users > on a 3 drive RAID 5 array (which means you're really using only two > disks) is tight as far as disk I/O is concerned. > > Some of the things I didn't ask were if you were running full > text indexing on your stores? > > Also, most people miss this, but if your users are doing things > like running searches in their mailboxes from outlook, using custom > views or running some sort of indexing software from their desktop > against their mailbox, your IO is going to get slammed hard. > > Also, mailbox size is another consideration. Do you have limits > on mailbox size? The smaller the mailbox (number of items) the easier > the load on your drive system. > > Another person suggested this, but running RAXCO's PerfectDisk > would help. Having the database files occupy contiguous space cuts down > on the delay necessary to find all the bits and pieces of the message. > You should need to run this only once or twice to ensure that the MDB's > are defragmented physically. Don't worry about running it against your > TL drive as that drive is mostly purged each night when you run backups. > > > Hope this helps. > > > John H. Matteson, Jr. > Systems Administrator/ITT Systems > FOB Orgun-E > Afghanistan > DSN - 318 431 8001 > VoSIP - (308) 431 - 0000 > Iridium - 717.633.3823 > > "A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group > in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among > you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the > Stars and Stripes." Woodrow Wilson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Milosavljevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:22 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > An external drive array would be an option. My main concern is why my > current setup is performing so badly. I have a 3 disk raid 5 array. I > understand raid 10, mirroring would be faster for the stores but the > current performance is simply dreadful. Disk is about 63% utilized and > there are four stores. Transactions logs are already on a separate > single drive (no room in server for an additional disk to mirror the log > drive). Can't help feeling I have missed something ............. > > mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Matteson, John H Jr USA Mr USA 25th SigBN (ITT) > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2008 4:22 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but as long as CPU and memory are > not being overly taxed, the user can get away with expanding his storage > into an external array. Either a 7 or 14 drive bay would work well, 10K > disks at 73.4 Gbytes per disk. > > You can run the drive array as a striped set to give you the maximum i/o > available. > > Transaction logs would go on the original drive array, after converting > it to a two drive mirror set and reformatting it to FAT32. > > I would also break your users into two or three MDB's under one Storage > Group. > > Online maintenance should run from midnight to 6 a.m. (or an hour or so > before your start of business hours) and then run 24 hours per day on > the weekend (assuming that you don't have a whole load of users on at > that time). > > But this is just me. > > > John H. Matteson, Jr. > Systems Administrator/ITT Systems > FOB Orgun-E > Afghanistan > DSN - 318 431 8001 > VoSIP - (308) 431 - 0000 > Iridium - 717.633.3823 > > "A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group > in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among > you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the > Stars and Stripes." Woodrow Wilson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Milosavljevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:16 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > Are there any guidelines I should be using in sizing server for 500 > mailboxes /100 gig total stores - in particular the I/O subsystem? . > About 70% of staff are connected via vpn and use cached mode. We are a > Not For Profit so don't have too much money to spend. We have as a rule > used HP in the past for most of our servers. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2008 7:44 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > Sounds to me like your I/O subsystem is slammed and needs to be > upgraded. > (Slammed is a technical term.) :-) > > The 1221 event log entries that should be spit out when online > maintenance finishes - how much free space do you have in your database? > > Regards, > > Michael B. Smith > MCSE/Exchange MVP > http://TheEssentialExchange.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Milosavljevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 2:41 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > The raid 5 is composed of 3 disks each 73.4GB Ultra 320 10K rpm. The > on-line maintenance is happening daily from about 7 am completing next > day around 3 AM > > Regards Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2008 12:18 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > How often is online maintenance completing? > > How many disks are in the RAID5 storage array? What speed? > > Regards, > > Michael B. Smith > MCSE/Exchange MVP > http://TheEssentialExchange.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Milosavljevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 1:16 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > Stores are not large - 100 gig in total (raid array has 144 gig > available for stores). Disk layout is operating system raid 1, stores > raid 5 and logs single disk. > On-line maintenance takes about 24 hours. Server is a IBM with a RAID > 5I controller > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, 12 February 2008 10:37 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > An average disk queue length of 10 is abysmal. > > Running a defrag will not help and may very well hurt. > > How large are your stores? What is the hardware of the disks? How often > is online maintenance completing? > > Regards, > > Michael B. Smith > MCSE/Exchange MVP > http://TheEssentialExchange.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Milosavljevic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 5:23 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Sluggish Performance Exchange 2003 > > Performance on our Exchange 2003 box has deteriorated and users are > complaining of poor response in opening emails. The box is an IBM 2.4 > Ghz, 4gig ram supporting 500 users. The software is windows 2003 > enterprise. Running performance monitor gave disk queue length of around > 10 on the stores volume - sometimes more. Running disk defrag utility on > stores volume gave volume fragmentation as 49% and file fragmentation as > 98%. My question is - can you use windows defrag utility to clean this > up or is there a better third party utility to do the job or am I > looking in the wrong area for the poor performance? > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
