Your 'test' E2K server was installed into your production AD? Oh boy. Were
you planning on hooking up this Exchange server to an existing 5.5 org?
-Original Message-
From: Bob Chyka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 1:08 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject:
name etc.
Bob C.
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install replacing live test server
Your 'test' E2K server was installed into your production AD? Oh
TechNet has several articles on completely removing Exchange and cleaning up
AD.
-Original Message-
From: Bob Chyka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:27 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: New Exchange 2000 Install replacing live test server
ok i will check it out..
thanks..
- Original Message -
From: Chris Scharff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 3:28 PM
Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install replacing live test server
TechNet has several articles on completely
I think you are on the right track. If you do anything different, add more
RAM.
BTW, With 3GB you will need to use the boot.ini switch /3GB, which requires
windows 2000 advance server. Otherwise, your apps (Exchange) will only get
2GB
See
You don't need the /3GB if you aren't running advanced server. Normal server
will work fine with 3Gb.
But then you knew that :)
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 June 2002 15:15
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install
I
Exchange 2000 Install
You don't need the /3GB if you aren't running advanced server. Normal server
will work fine with 3Gb.
But then you knew that :)
-Original Message-
From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 18 June 2002 15:15
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange
PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install
I think you are on the right track. If you do anything different, add more
RAM.
BTW, With 3GB you will need to use the boot.ini switch /3GB, which
requires
windows
Message-
From: Bob Chyka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:29 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: New Exchange 2000 Install
thanks i already have that article printed out. thanks for the info ..and
yes i am going to be running advanced server with exchange enterprise
]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:36 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install
With only one set of spindles for information store, there is no
performance
benefit to be had from multiple storage groups or databases.
If you have a set of mailboxes that have differing
Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 7:42 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install
That's not entirely
Of Bob Chyka
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:22 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: New Exchange 2000 Install
Ed,
would you recommend having just one storage group with the equipment i
have to work with? thanks for your insights..
BOb C.
- Original Message -
From: Ed Crowley [EMAIL
Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install
I wouldn't characterize that advantage as a performance benefit.
Creating two or more storage groups with that configuration could
actually reduce performance since the two would be competing for the
same log drive.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
max...
Bob C.
- Original Message -
From: Neil Hobson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: New Exchange 2000 Install
I would, otherwise you'll have another set of transaction log files.
Also, if a user on database
14 matches
Mail list logo
