Good afternoon Len,
Here is my config. Pentium Pro 200 128MB Intel MB & BX Chipset
(2) 13GB IDE HDD's ( All I had at the time ) Intel Pro/100 Nic
Here is how I have the drives configured
Drive 1
C: 1GB NTFS
D: CDROM
E: Rest of drive 1 NTFS
Drive 2
F: All of second drive NTFS
I moved the swap file here for NT also
I use this method and it improves the
speed of NT a bit. IMHO
We have appox 150 domains + and 800 users + to migrate
over.
I installed Imail and during the install I was only asked where
to put the program. I put it on E: , It created the default
domain etc. The top dir was set to E:, I read in the manual
where the recommed NOT to move or change it ever. I did and
it messed things up. No big deal just start over with a clean
install. Before I do can you tell me what I need to do to
split the spool dir from the virtual domain directories. I
am not at all conerned about re-install I have a mirror of my
delault load with SP5 before the Imail install etc. :)
P.S. I really didn't mean to start such a debate over the
NT4.0 WS 10 user limit. I just didn't want to use it if it
did indeed limit 10 people at a time on the box via either
the web interface etc. I know that Imail is the program that
is logging the users on and NOT NT. So, What are you running ?
By your advice I think the answer in NT4.0 WS and this works
well for you correct ?
Thanks
Chris
At 06:25 PM 05/31/2000 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the input. I am a bit confused by the
>>reccomendation for NT WS. My understanding is that
>>MS limits NT WS4.0 to 10 IP connections at a single
>>time. Does this not limit availability ?
>
>I think that was 10 "NT users" logged in at a time, no? Didn't MS back
>down from that power play? can't remember..
>
>>I just
>>read an article yesterday where IP switch was reviwed
>>and their choice between NT4.0 and MS2000 was NT4.0
>>so I am going that route for now. If they wont run
>>under MS2000 for a product review then I wont either..
>>MHO
>
>sure, most analysts think there are only marginal justifications for moving
>from NT4 to W2K, apart from MS's W2K bugs. But, moving from Win9x to W2K
>desktop is an easier justification. Imail's installed base is on NT4, not
W2K..
>
>>As far a the 2 disk drives i don't follow the second
>>drive structure
>>
>>e: user1
>>
>>f: user2
>> ditto
>>
>>Could you spell it out for me ? I must be thick today !
>
>Please note that it'll work anyway you do it..
>
>But since you were so concerned about throwing big horses at what turned
>out to be a comparatively small job, I thought I recommend a 'better,
>optimized' partitioning & disk usage than "everthing in c:\". It's dumb to
>have hot hardware and then screw up its implementation..
>
>Just to keep your partitions from getting too big and slow when your 1000's
>of users starting keeps hundreds of tiny / large msg files PER USR in their
>mailboxes. And since fat IDE disks are so cheap, since all PC's come with
>two IDE busses (4 drives), since Imail is highly multi-tasked, etc, etc..
>
>>I have been watching the list and would like to offer
>>my thanks to you for all of your input to the list..
>
>thanks..
>
>>I am also going to install the IMGATE because I am
>>familiar with RED HAT as well as Free BSD. I was
>>wondering if it will run under Mandrake as well ?
>
>yeah, postfix's install routines are very well done and 'distro
>sensitive'. Dusty Carden here got his IMGate running on Linux, since he
>knows that. I, and postfix, really don't care. Whatever you're
>comfortable with. Unlike MS, I'm pro-choice. vbg
>
>Len
>
>Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
>to be removed from this list..
>
>
>
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
