RE: configuration question
How many men does it take to open a beer? - None. It should be opened by the time she brings it. That should cover the tease part!. -Original Message- From: Leeann McCallum [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: January 15 2002 1:53 AM Posted To: exchange Conversation: configuration question Subject: RE: configuration question Women don't tease. They merely take advantage of the weak nature, so often exhibited by men, by lulling them into a sense of playful curiosity purely for their own amusement. -Original Message- From: Tim McGrath [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 15 January 2002 6:42 p.m. To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: configuration question Don't know yet I'll find out tomorrow when I try it out! I like to tease!!! Learned it from all you women!! hahahahaha! _ 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]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Just to ask a question?. Frazer never implied any hardware except RAM. Why include the dual Pentium scenario? Windows 2000 can take advantage of SMP but Exchange 2000?. I'm interested in what Exchange can do with SMP?. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: January 10 2002 4:48 PM Posted To: exchange Conversation: High Physical Memory Utilization 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]
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
more is better I'm afraid your logic is flawed The biggest problem with Microsoft products is they have made it easy for a multiple of click and go people to install the product and hence in the real world Microsoft's name is taken down by people who don't know how to design. Hence a revised emphasize on design in Microsoft 2000 testing. And yes testing is a good and bad thing but nothing mirrors real world experience. If we are rational; MS has bought an understanding of corporate systems to the masses which has it pros and cons Just to set the record straight I came from a mainframe and unix background Anyone who designs a system for 10 years from a server prospective is in the insanity bracket. Rational: Moores Law My $0.02 Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: January 11 2002 1:02 PM Posted To: exchange Conversation: High Physical Memory Utilization Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization More is better. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:01 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Just to ask a question?. Frazer never implied any hardware except RAM. Why include the dual Pentium scenario? Windows 2000 can take advantage of SMP but Exchange 2000?. I'm interested in what Exchange can do with SMP?. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: January 10 2002 4:48 PM Posted To: exchange Conversation: High Physical Memory Utilization 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] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I'm sitting on great big one. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: January 11 2002 2:22 PM Posted To: exchange Conversation: High Physical Memory Utilization Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I got a rock. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 60 users -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Let's see - I have about 10 servers around the world that are 1GB machines with 300-500 users on them - with 100MB limits. His hardware is fine. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Nope. Disagree. This problem could have been avoided with proper implementation of hardware. In my opinion. My solution is not to throw hardware at a problem. My solution is to implement a proper hardware solution in the beginning! I was not trying to solve the person's problem. I simply made an statement reflecting my opinion that they should evaluate their hardware. 400 users and 1 gig of ram did not seem like an appropriate solution that would provide current stability and room for future growth. Besides, who wants to replace their Exchange Server Hardware every 2 years? What's wrong with building a system that will last 3-4 years reliably? Are you guys saying this is a bad thing? It sure seems that way. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization No - you were not giving an opinion. You were giving an ill-conceived solution to a stated problem. People who have been here pick up on who to listen to and to whom they should not listen. Not everyone has been here that long. Fortunately, for the person who originally asked the question, a few of us who do know good solutions addressed to the specific problems. It would appear that your first solution is to throw hardware at the problem. I used to think the same thing. 5 Years ago. Before I learned a LOT about this stuff. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization And another comment Mr. Ely. Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone else on the list. I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in my opinion has giving me the best level of performance and least amount of headaches over a 10 year period. Whether you choose this type of hardware is irrelevant being that I'm the one stating an opinion. You have the option of lending your alternative option to the discussion. This would give the person whom made the original post more alternatives. Second, I have never claimed to be the foremost expert on Exchange Server. I am here with an open mind and willing and needing to learn just like everyone else. However, I do intend to post my opinions. Thanks for your time. -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
RE: admin pasword
Ladies and Gentlemen, Please read the readme as its not a solution to all your password issues. The laptop password should be fine as there is not a domain SAM or hardware striping involved!. There are some caveats with this tool such as understanding linux to get the full potential out of this tool. sean -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: January 9 2002 11:31 AM Posted To: exchange Conversation: admin pasword Subject: Re: admin pasword http://www.nmrc.org has a tool to boot up to a lilo boot and reset any password. ~ -K.Borndale Network Administrator Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com One man's ceiling is another man's floor |+--- || Kim Schotanus | || [EMAIL PROTECTED] | || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 01/09/2002 06:49 AM | || Please respond to| || Exchange Discussions | || | |+--- --- --| | | | To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: admin pasword | --- --| Hi I lost an admin password for NT4 on a laptop, is there a way to get in? It is not configured for the network so that is not a solution. Kim _ 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]
RE: admin pasword
Just like the FAQ at the bottom of each and every mail from this list? Sean -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: January 9 2002 1:00 PM Posted To: exchange Conversation: admin pasword Subject: RE: admin pasword Please read the readme Isnt that a given? -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 11:58 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: admin pasword Ladies and Gentlemen, Please read the readme as its not a solution to all your password issues. The laptop password should be fine as there is not a domain SAM or hardware striping involved!. There are some caveats with this tool such as understanding linux to get the full potential out of this tool. sean -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: January 9 2002 11:31 AM Posted To: exchange Conversation: admin pasword Subject: Re: admin pasword http://www.nmrc.org has a tool to boot up to a lilo boot and reset any password. ~ -K.Borndale Network Administrator Sybari Software 631.630.8569 -direct dial 631.439.0689 -fax http://www.sybari.com One man's ceiling is another man's floor |+--- || Kim Schotanus | || [EMAIL PROTECTED] | || Sent by: | || bounce-exchange-148870@ls| || .swynk.com | || | || | || 01/09/2002 06:49 AM | || Please respond to| || Exchange Discussions | || | |+--- --- --| | | | To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: admin pasword | --- --| Hi I lost an admin password for NT4 on a laptop, is there a way to get in? It is not configured for the network so that is not a solution. Kim _ 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]
RE: Win2k backup and Exchange
David, First,I would read the paper disaster recovery. Second,I would ask the question why can you not do full (normal) backups every day unless of course your data outstrips your tape size on each server. I think you are reading into differentials too deeply. Personally I would recommend Veritas Backupexec as NTBackup is a stripped down version albeit free, but again it comes down to the horses for courses and each person can tell a different story where backups are concerned. My reasoning is the restore times from testing are faster with Veritas. Whether you want to pay that much more is the question?. Yours sincerely, Sean McGilligan [ I realize there are no stupid questions but only stupid people who ask questions so I'll throw my hat into the stupid ring as this is probably very simple... I finally got my boss to buy a DLT drive exclusively for each of my Exchange 2000 servers. From all I've read here and elsewhere I decided to use NTBackup rather than ARCServe on my servers. I cannot, however, find a way to setup the backups correctly. I aim to do a nightly full backup at 11pm with differentials every two hours from 6am until 8pm when the tape would be replaced for that night's backup. I see in the backup wizard how to set the daily backup as a normal and how to schedule a second differential backup for only the information store at my selected times. However, the option to append rather than overwrite the media is grayed out on the differential. If this differential is going to overwrite the full backup then a single tape source for backup isn't feasible. I'm sure it is but I'm just missing something so anything you can offer would be appreciated. ] _ 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]
RE: fix monitor
Ladies Gentlemen, The useful pots are normally not located far, from the items that are not good for your health. A hardware engineer was working on those all in one terminals that attach to mini / minframes and the his co-workers where laughing at him jerking around because he thought it was funny. Unfortunately he'd let a uninsultaed screwdriver slip and his jerking around wasn't a stunt. Luckily someone hit the master power switch!. Even the so called professionals have mishaps. Buy a new one; 9 out of every 10 are genuinely broken!. Just my pennies worth. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: Dillon, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: January 3 2002 12:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor If you have a zero budget or zero boss, don't let the 'ole flyback capacitor scare you away. There are lotsa useful pots in there that can fix the focus, the brightness, etc, and you can futz with the magnets if the screen is lumpy. Likewise, many a monitor has been resurrected by replacing a $.25 fuse or the smelly burnt component smoldering on the board. Unplug the thing for a few minutes (an hour if you're paranoid--years won't be necessary), use insulated tools, and borrow some rubber gloves if your hair is already spiked. I do agree that it is rarely worth paying for this, so dive in -Original Message- From: Ken Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: fix monitor I realize I am late to this discussion, as I have read many catapult references, however I don't think it was addressed. I am relatively new To the Exchange World, only a year and a half working with it. But I have Been involved with Networking and Computers in general for the last 12 years. I got my start (as probably did everyone here) working on hardware. Richard, I can tell you there are most certainly no user serviceable parts In a monitor. And Opening one up can be Fatal. The Flyback Capacitor Can hold a charge of several thousand volts for years. There is more than enough Voltage there to severely burn you, if not kill you. Like everyone one else Here has said, it's cheaper to buy a new one, then get an old one fixed. Unless.You live near a High School that has a Vocational Education Program that specializes in Electronics. These kinds of schools Will usually Fix the equipment at no charge save for parts. Just An idea. Ken Kenneth Davis IT Manager American Wood Moulding, LLC For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 10:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: fix monitor for all u hardware/monitor geniuses out there do u know a good place on the web to tell me how to open/fix a monitor? _ 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]
RE: mailbox not creating
Rachel, From your suggestion of a BDC with all due respect; I would look at the structure of Windows 2000 before I rushed into the Exchange 2000 world. That aside historically, there was a huge debate on the merits of putting exchange on a BDC. Now with exchange 2000 the idea of it residing on a Domain controller is not the modern thinking unless you have some rational business decision that your organization can justify On the question about users; if it set up correctly you right click on the UserID and configure them to support mailing there is nothing more to it. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: RACHEL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 30 2001 2:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: mailbox not creating I am trying to build my first Win2k Exch2000 server. I have win2k set up as a backup domain controller. When I create a user it goes though the part where it creates the exchange mailbox, but when I go to Exchange system manager and look there are no mailboxes. When I go to properties for the user, it does not show the email address. I will continue searching the faq. If anyone knows a releavant article # I would appreciate it. thank you _ 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]
RE: mailbox not creating
Chris, I would agree with you but saying Exch2k resides on a BDC. Sounds like a configuration issue unless that was a freudian slip. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 31 2001 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating And addresses don't appear until after the RUS has applied the recipient policy. If you wait 15 minutes does the account get an address? Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 8:20 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating The mailbox wont show up in the ESM until the user opens their mailbox for the first time or an email is sent to that user. -Original Message- From: RACHEL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2001 1:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: mailbox not creating I am trying to build my first Win2k Exch2000 server. I have win2k set up as a backup domain controller. When I create a user it goes though the part where it creates the exchange mailbox, but when I go to Exchange system manager and look there are no mailboxes. When I go to properties for the user, it does not show the email address. I will continue searching the faq. If anyone knows a releavant article # I would appreciate it. thank you _ 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] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis, Suhler Associates, Inc. by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ 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]
RE: mailbox not creating
Chris, Your right. I always thought Exchange 5.5 on a BDC wasn't an issue and that was a personal choice. As long as your whole backup strategy was sound. But people liked to debate on that, as witnessed on this list about 3 years ago. But exchange 2000 on a domain controller especially if it has the five roles of destiny; makes life interesting and NTDSUTIL takes on a whole new meaning. I prefer the member server approach in that instance. Sean mcgilligan -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 31 2001 11:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating For the vast majority of organizations putting Exchange on a BDC doesn't really matter 1 way or another IMHO. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 9:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating Rachel, From your suggestion of a BDC with all due respect; I would look at the structure of Windows 2000 before I rushed into the Exchange 2000 world. That aside historically, there was a huge debate on the merits of putting exchange on a BDC. Now with exchange 2000 the idea of it residing on a Domain controller is not the modern thinking unless you have some rational business decision that your organization can justify On the question about users; if it set up correctly you right click on the UserID and configure them to support mailing there is nothing more to it. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: RACHEL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 30 2001 2:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: mailbox not creating I am trying to build my first Win2k Exch2000 server. I have win2k set up as a backup domain controller. When I create a user it goes though the part where it creates the exchange mailbox, but when I go to Exchange system manager and look there are no mailboxes. When I go to properties for the user, it does not show the email address. I will continue searching the faq. If anyone knows a releavant article # I would appreciate it. thank you _ 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]
RE: mailbox not creating
Ed, I would agree with you in principle. But the argument doesn't stand when you talk about a product like Small Business Server. They are catering for a market that doesn't accept buy hardware is cheap, philosophy. The people in the lower tier obviously want the toys but cannot afford the infrastructure and we have seen the results and to be honest; some work and some don't!. Few thoughts and its back to the horses for courses scenario. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 31 2001 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating The consensus in this list about putting Exchange on a domain controller generally focused on two issues, load and recovery. A DC introduces extra load, but most small- to medium-sized organizations wouldn't notice any difference. This argument actually gains weight with Windows 2000 because Active Directory uses more cycles, though cycles are cheaper than they used to be. Putting an Exchange Server on a DC (especially on a Windows NT PDC) makes it take longer to recover, mainly because there are more steps. With Windows 2000, you'll also have replication delays. I agree with Chris that most people won't find these arguments too compelling, but with what computers cost nowadays, having a couple of dedicated machines for domain conrtrollers shouldn't be a big deal. Ed Crowley Compaq Computer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of McGilligan, Sean Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 8:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating Chris, Your right. I always thought Exchange 5.5 on a BDC wasn't an issue and that was a personal choice. As long as your whole backup strategy was sound. But people liked to debate on that, as witnessed on this list about 3 years ago. But exchange 2000 on a domain controller especially if it has the five roles of destiny; makes life interesting and NTDSUTIL takes on a whole new meaning. I prefer the member server approach in that instance. Sean mcgilligan -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 31 2001 11:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating For the vast majority of organizations putting Exchange on a BDC doesn't really matter 1 way or another IMHO. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 9:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating Rachel, From your suggestion of a BDC with all due respect; I would look at the structure of Windows 2000 before I rushed into the Exchange 2000 world. That aside historically, there was a huge debate on the merits of putting exchange on a BDC. Now with exchange 2000 the idea of it residing on a Domain controller is not the modern thinking unless you have some rational business decision that your organization can justify On the question about users; if it set up correctly you right click on the UserID and configure them to support mailing there is nothing more to it. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: RACHEL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 30 2001 2:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: mailbox not creating I am trying to build my first Win2k Exch2000 server. I have win2k set up as a backup domain controller. When I create a user it goes though the part where it creates the exchange mailbox, but when I go to Exchange system manager and look there are no mailboxes. When I go to properties for the user, it does not show the email address. I will continue searching the faq. If anyone knows a releavant article # I would appreciate it. thank you _ 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
RE: mailbox not creating
I never talk about the Special Boat Service either Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 31 2001 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating I never talk about SBS. Ed Crowley Compaq Computer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of McGilligan, Sean Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 9:46 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating Ed, I would agree with you in principle. But the argument doesn't stand when you talk about a product like Small Business Server. They are catering for a market that doesn't accept buy hardware is cheap, philosophy. The people in the lower tier obviously want the toys but cannot afford the infrastructure and we have seen the results and to be honest; some work and some don't!. Few thoughts and its back to the horses for courses scenario. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 31 2001 1:10 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating The consensus in this list about putting Exchange on a domain controller generally focused on two issues, load and recovery. A DC introduces extra load, but most small- to medium-sized organizations wouldn't notice any difference. This argument actually gains weight with Windows 2000 because Active Directory uses more cycles, though cycles are cheaper than they used to be. Putting an Exchange Server on a DC (especially on a Windows NT PDC) makes it take longer to recover, mainly because there are more steps. With Windows 2000, you'll also have replication delays. I agree with Chris that most people won't find these arguments too compelling, but with what computers cost nowadays, having a couple of dedicated machines for domain conrtrollers shouldn't be a big deal. Ed Crowley Compaq Computer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of McGilligan, Sean Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 8:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating Chris, Your right. I always thought Exchange 5.5 on a BDC wasn't an issue and that was a personal choice. As long as your whole backup strategy was sound. But people liked to debate on that, as witnessed on this list about 3 years ago. But exchange 2000 on a domain controller especially if it has the five roles of destiny; makes life interesting and NTDSUTIL takes on a whole new meaning. I prefer the member server approach in that instance. Sean mcgilligan -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 31 2001 11:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating For the vast majority of organizations putting Exchange on a BDC doesn't really matter 1 way or another IMHO. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 9:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: mailbox not creating Rachel, From your suggestion of a BDC with all due respect; I would look at the structure of Windows 2000 before I rushed into the Exchange 2000 world. That aside historically, there was a huge debate on the merits of putting exchange on a BDC. Now with exchange 2000 the idea of it residing on a Domain controller is not the modern thinking unless you have some rational business decision that your organization can justify On the question about users; if it set up correctly you right click on the UserID and configure them to support mailing there is nothing more to it. Sean McGilligan -Original Message- From: RACHEL [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 30 2001 2:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: mailbox not creating I am trying to build my first Win2k Exch2000 server. I have win2k set up as a backup domain controller. When I create a user it goes though the part where it creates the exchange mailbox, but when I go to Exchange system manager and look there are no mailboxes. When I go to properties for the user, it does not show the email address. I will continue searching the faq. If anyone knows a releavant article # I would appreciate it. thank you _ 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
RE: Deleting Empty ABV's
Darren, The administrator may not be the administrator of the mail system!. SMcG -Original Message- From: Darren Ash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 27 2001 7:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Deleting Empty ABV's [Darren Ash] I need to delete some emptry address book views but when i try I am told i do not have permission. Logged in as Administrator, NT4, SP6, Ex 5.5 (SP4). Any ideas anyone ? Coolchain LtdCoolchain Ltd London Road Henley Road Teynham Paddock Wood Kent Kent ME9 9PR TN12 6DN Tel: 01795 523200Tel: 01892 831400 Fax: 01795 523241Fax: 01892 831411 All business is conducted in accordance with the company's terms and conditions, a copy of which is available on request. For the avoidance of doubt, all orders initiated by ourselves must be signed by an authorised signatory of this company. _ 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]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ 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]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
I meant to say the Exchange CD rom under support\utils It will baulk about dlls but just add a path statement pointing to your exchsrvr\bin directory Minor faux paus smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 3:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Exmerge is on the W2K CD??? Off to go check that out... D There are many paths to the top of the mountain, but only one view. -Harry Millner -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ 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]
RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard
Next thing you will be telling me its under warranty product Most people on this list have been around exmerge and its various revisons and even the pst exporters pre exmerge!. As you know it was a BORK product and now has been placed on a mainstream product and in this case I think this has been a techie request and not a marketing ploy. Everyone is entitled to their viewpoint so I leave it at that. smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 4:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard The fact that it is on the CD does not make it fully supported. -aseigler -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Gentlemen, This is a horse for courses scenario and not; there can only be one method. It depends on what you want to achieve. And Exmerge does ship with windows 2000 CD-rom (w2k only product though) My pennies worth Merry Xmas smcgilligan -Original Message- From: Alex Seigler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: December 21 2001 1:26 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard I prefer the move server process. As long as you're using the latest store.exe and mvstore.dll, and your database is in acceptable shape, move server will get you where you're going much faster, plus you keep single instance storage. On top of that, move server is fully supported, which is more than I can say for exmerge. -aseigler -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 12:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Well since you kind of apologized. We prefer Exmerge [1] over Move Server. We have found that we can be at the bar drinking much quicker with the Exmerge process. [1] Especially with the Iron Chef Exmerge-Roger Seielstad add-on module -Original Message- From: Keith Beahm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: M$ Exchange Move Server Wizard Ok, so I give. M$ was meant to convey Microsoft. Is this better - MS Exchange Move Server Wizard? I've been reading this column for the last year now. I knew to expect the sarcasm, but I was also hoping to benefit from your global wisdom. Thanks and Merry Christmas to all. _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. _ 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]
