DL with no Members (WAS) RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Mr. Lefkovics / Dr. Dogg, When I send an e-mail to an address I know to be on the DL in question, it should just disappear, without any notification to me or the postmaster, correct? Instead, when I send to an address on that DL, I get the following error message from the System Administrator account: From: System Administrator Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 11:09 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:Undeliverable: Test Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients. Subject:Test Sent: 1/15/2002 11:09 AM The following recipient(s) could not be reached: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' on 1/15/2002 11:09 AM Unable to complete the expansion of a distribution list The MTS-ID of the original message is: c=US;a= ;p=HANFORD;l=ERCEX06-020115190847Z-31857 MSEXCH:MSExchangeMTA:ERC:ERCEX06 1. The name of the DL is DL-ERC-Deleted Accounts 2. The DL has no SMTP addy of its own. 3. The DL is hidden from the GAL. 4. It is set to expand on any server in the site. 5. It is set to accept from all and not reject anyone. 6. No one but me has permissions to it. 7. It's not on any other DL's. 8. There are no members in this DL. 9. It only has 10 SMTP addys associated with it. 10. None of the addy's exist anywhere else. Thanks for the help. Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Lefkovics, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:12 PM To: Blunt, James H (Jim); '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization LOL! How did I get in there? No NDR should be returned if the SMTP alias is typed correctly. And no error message should be returned. At least not in my Exchange5.5 experience regarding this. I haven't read this thread (sorry) but I'd log into hotmail or something and send to this person and review the NDR. Praise be to Allah. William -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 5:09 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'; '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Hey Dr. Dogg, Got a question on that little NDR thingee... I implemented that little DL tip as well, when I saw that on the list...and it IS hidden. Since then, I have gotten an NDR for an employee that left. In that NDR, directly in the To... list was the name of the new, hidden DL. The DL has no SMTP addy of it's own now, thanks to Chris Scharff's tip yesterday and it has NEVER been used to send an e-mail out. However, is it POSSIBLE (maybe not probable) that when the message comes in for the SMTP addy in the DL and it tries to send to the blank list, that at that point it sends an error (not an NDR) message back to the originator, with the DL name in the e-mail??? To read the full thread yesterday, look under OWA Enumeration Question. TIA, James H (Jim) Blunt Network / Microsoft Exchange Admin. Network Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. 509-372-9188 -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 2:02 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization The box is a Dual Xeon 550 Compaq server with an External RAID array. I get that too. Takes me a few minutes to load the admin mail box. Then there are about 2000 new NDR'S and such in there every day when I load it. That box hates me. But thanks to Mr. Lefkovics that is getting better. paste NDR's By William Lefkovics The black hole is to create a DL that has multiple SMTP addresses of ex-employees, but make sure there's no members in the DL. Messages sent to the relevant SMTP addresses simply vanish. Shame you can't put a few selected people into the DL as well. :-) /paste Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Saul Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization How many, and what speed is your processor on your Exchange Box? I am running 1gMhz, with 1g Ram, for about 200 users, and I still get Requesting data from the Microsoft Exchange Server Share your secret on how you do that? Thanks Saul _ 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
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of McGilligan, Sean Sent: 11 January 2002 17:01 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] _ 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
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of McGilligan, Sean Sent: 11 January 2002 17:01 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] _ 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
I'm sure Exchange is multi threaded. I would always use dual CPU's in an Exch box, and I start the lean that way with more boxes now. I had a Mobo problem in an IBM once that fried the first CPU. But I was able to run on one while I waited for repair. -Original Message- From: Glenn Rose-Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 8:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of McGilligan, Sean Sent: 11 January 2002 17:01 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] _ 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
I ran 400 user mailboxes with 256MB of RAM. At the time, that server was also a BDC and a file server. We were on a tight budget. Was performance ok ? Not only was that server still in place when I left (2 years after), we'd never heard a single complaint. There *is* such a thing as too much hardware, and youre illustrating that point perfectly. -- Jad Mouracadé [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Hey! That was *my* quote from the Sunbelt list, not William's! :-) Neil -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2002 22:02 Posted To: Exchange Mailing List Conversation: High Physical Memory Utilization Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization The box is a Dual Xeon 550 Compaq server with an External RAID array. I get that too. Takes me a few minutes to load the admin mail box. Then there are about 2000 new NDR'S and such in there every day when I load it. That box hates me. But thanks to Mr. Lefkovics that is getting better. paste NDR's By William Lefkovics The black hole is to create a DL that has multiple SMTP addresses of ex-employees, but make sure there's no members in the DL. Messages sent to the relevant SMTP addresses simply vanish. Shame you can't put a few selected people into the DL as well. :-) /paste Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Saul Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization How many, and what speed is your processor on your Exchange Box? I am running 1gMhz, with 1g Ram, for about 200 users, and I still get Requesting data from the Microsoft Exchange Server Share your secret on how you do that? Thanks Saul _ 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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] ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands, or any of its subsidiary companies. If you have received this email in error, please contact our Support Desk immediately by telephone on 01202-36 or via email at [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
So that begs the question before the rebuild why was it running at 60%? No hardware change Does anyone know where I can find the Performance Optimizer Settings? Is it a registry key or what? 34 answers and no one with any real ideas. Did I ask a stupid question? -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 January 2002 20:55 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Start with these links, read for a few days. Then realize that this function is by design, why have the memory if you are not going to use it? You do not buy a Dodge v10 Pickup and get angry if the engine uses more then 3 cylinders do you? Exchange for beginners http://www.exchange-mail.org/books.html http://www.swinc.com/resource/books.asp http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm http://www.microsoft.com/exchange Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Frazer J Clark Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:09 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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 in this email and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This information may be subject to legal professional or other privilege or may otherwise be protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. It must not be disclosed to any person without our authority. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part of it. * _ 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
Frazer, The Performance Optimizer Settings are scattered all over the registry. You can view them with regedit @ HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\MSExchangeDS,ES,IMC,IS Etc.\Parameters. You can also run the Performance Optimizer in read-only mode to view the current setting. Drive:\exchsrvr\bin\perfwiz.exe -r Hope this helps. -Original Message- From: Clark, Frazer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Importance: High So that begs the question before the rebuild why was it running at 60%? No hardware change Does anyone know where I can find the Performance Optimizer Settings? Is it a registry key or what? 34 answers and no one with any real ideas. Did I ask a stupid question? -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 10 January 2002 20:55 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Start with these links, read for a few days. Then realize that this function is by design, why have the memory if you are not going to use it? You do not buy a Dodge v10 Pickup and get angry if the engine uses more then 3 cylinders do you? Exchange for beginners http://www.exchange-mail.org/books.html http://www.swinc.com/resource/books.asp http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm http://www.microsoft.com/exchange Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Frazer J Clark Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 9:09 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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 in this email and in any attachments is confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This information may be subject to legal professional or other privilege or may otherwise be protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. It must not be disclosed to any person without our authority. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are not authorised to and must not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message or any part of it. * _ 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
You're full of crap. That's a perfectly acceptable hardware configuration, assuming the unstated configuration (drives and processors) are reasonably well configured. The physical memory usage is per spec - its Dynamic Buffer Allocation. Frazer - get a copy of Paul Robichaux's Managing Exchange book from O'Reilly press. Look at the Performance Optimizer section dealing with the Verbose mode. It should answer your questions. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
Ever heard of a calculator??? 85,754,376/4081/1024= 20.5MB average mailbox size. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Hmm. Do you have your mailboxes restricted to 1 Meg each. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 4079 recipients in the, opps just got 2 more, 4081 recipients. Taskmgr says I have 523,700 Total Physical memory, Explorer says my priv is 85,754,376kb Looks like I do? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization No you don't. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
What crack pipe are you smoking out of? Those specs are way beyond what's necessary! D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
I'll bet he does! I'll bet I do and still will! I'll bet there are a lot of us out there that didn't over-spec our servers... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization No you don't. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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
Typically, I don't think you have a friggin clue about what you're talking about. I've had a 20gb+ store on a box running with 512MB of RAM. It worked just fine... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Typically if you have a 4 gig priv.edb your Memory Utilization is going to be around 800-900 Meg. Obviously this number would fluctuate based on the numbers of users connected to the system. The amount of mail moving back and forth through the database on 4000 users there is no way your running 1 gig of ram unless your strickly speaking of an smtp relay box. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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
Sorry boss, I'd venture to say you know a lot less than most of us. My SQL box running a QMS app doesn't even use that much hardware and it's waaay more over tasked resource-wise than my Exchange server. Sounds like you robbed someone blind... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Excuse me for doubting but I can only base my assumptions on real world experience. I know for a fact that a typical Exchange Box with Mailboxes providing Mapi based services with a 4 gig priv will run around 800 meg ram utilization. With two processors and a raid controller on this box your would drastically reduce the disk i/o activity on this box which equates to cooler drives and a longer lasting exchange box. Maybe it's overkill but I'd much rather have an Exchange Box running at 1% processor utilization and have 20% of my physical ram free. Thanks. Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA Director of Network Services Privacy Officer Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org) 817.412.5406 -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Do you doubt the Word of the Dogg??? A spanking! A spanking!!! -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men? (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization No you don't. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Memory usage on Exchange is whatever exchange wants to use. If it wants a gig of RAM, it will take it, if it wanted 2gigs of RAM, it would take it. I suggest you read some more... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:47 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Hmm. My experience has been that the mem utilization is typically 25-30% of the priv size. And this does not account for the imc and other components like av software. Your memory optimization skills must be much more advanced than my own Care to share the secret? Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA Director of Network Services Privacy Officer Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org) 817.412.5406 -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 4079 recipients in the, opps just got 2 more, 4081 recipients. Taskmgr says I have 523,700 Total Physical memory, Explorer says my priv is 85,754,376kb Looks like I do? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization No you don't. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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
That's a network problem, not an exchange problem... D -Original Message- From: Saul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:58 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization How many, and what speed is your processor on your Exchange Box? I am running 1gMhz, with 1g Ram, for about 200 users, and I still get Requesting data from the Microsoft Exchange Server Share your secret on how you do that? Thanks Saul _ 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
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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
I'm saving it for less headaches in the future. -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What are you saving that 99% processor and 20% RAM for, exactly? -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people. -Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), 10/25/01 opposing the enactment of the USA-PATRIOT Act -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Excuse me for doubting but I can only base my assumptions on real world experience. I know for a fact that a typical Exchange Box with Mailboxes providing Mapi based services with a 4 gig priv will run around 800 meg ram utilization. With two processors and a raid controller on this box your would drastically reduce the disk i/o activity on this box which equates to cooler drives and a longer lasting exchange box. Maybe it's overkill but I'd much rather have an Exchange Box running at 1% processor utilization and have 20% of my physical ram free. Thanks. Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA Director of Network Services Privacy Officer Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org) 817.412.5406 -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Do you doubt the Word of the Dogg??? A spanking! A spanking!!! -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men? (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization No you don't. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
Sounds to me like you just waste money. You can always beef up a server later if needed. Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
I still have a hard seeing this machine running efficiently for 5-8 Years + why buy such a large machine when for less money you could buy several smaller machines and eliminate the SPoF PROFITLAB Network Engineer PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
10 years? 10 Years? 10 Years? 10 years? 10 friggin years? -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
A system that is good for 5-8 years? So you are currently running systems that were state of the art 5-8 years ago? Do you have Exchange running on a 486-DX2 with 128MB of RAM? BTW, from a financial standpoint any system that old is already fully depreciated. I suspect your support costs for continuing to support systems that old, as well as the loss of productivity your users experience due to hardware this old. I agree with the Buy the biggest system you can now, but I'm just hoping to keep it running for 3 years until I've fully written it off the books. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
EXCUSE ME!!! It's not that I nor my company can't afford your server spec, it's the fact that I KNOW how to spec a server whereas it seems you DON'T. Your recommendation SUCKS! You recommended a system that should last 5-8 years!!! ROFLMFAO! PuH-LEASE! Technology changes too fast, NO SERVER will EVER LAST 5-8 years. I spec mine to get a maximum of four years. I don't need to re-evaluate how I spend money. I spread it around so I have the toys in place to manage the entire network and put new toys in place to improve upon the network. Your server is a waste of money. I could have used the spare cash and probably upgraded every switch in my server room to a Layer 3... Cannot afford to spec a server appropriately PUH-LEASE! Then again... I wanna know why it took you 20 posts to give us this... Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA Director of Network Services Privacy Officer Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org) 817.412.5406 Are we that happy about our title and certs? Does that make you feel all big and strong? Should we all start listing our titles and certs, how about our years of experience too? You gonna tell all of us we don't know how to spec a server? I know at least 10 people in this thread that will and have called BS on your specs... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Yes Exchange is critical and it the money is given accordingly. To spec a machine for 10(!) years would probably require us to either reduce services elsewhere or lose a member of staff as there is a finite budget. If I need something and can justify it with sensible business sense, I normally will get it. A server to last 10 years can simply not be justified. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:35 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Yeah, I'm soo lacking in experience... I tell ya... -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
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. But wasn't Don merely stating *his* opinion? Or is it only ok for you to have one? You know, when you have one opinion, and the majority of a large list, like ohh this one, have another opinion, then you might consider it time to re-evaluate your opinion. Someone else actually stated their server load and you basically told them they were wrong. That is going beyond stating an opinion, each person here probably knows best of all what is running on their own servers. I've got one here with only 1 gig of ram and 2500 users. According to you, that's impossible, but you are free to come visit this site and count them and still see if you feel that way. -- Robert Moir, MSMVP IT Systems Engineer, Luton Sixth Form College Rules for sysadmins # 705: If I am in any doubt as to how a wildcard will expand I will echo it first. -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ 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
Please, most of us here wrote the book on how to sell to management... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Your opinion sucks... But please, continue sharing. I needed a new whipping boy, Tener's not up to it... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
I agree. The 5-8 years was a little far-fetched. However, I was simply trying to make a point. My goal is to get the most I can now. 3 years from now I'll do it again. And another point You guys are stuck on the mentality that I might be overpaying for something. I would like you to consider this. I don't know your situation but I personally have saved the company much more than I've convinced them to spend! -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization A system that is good for 5-8 years? So you are currently running systems that were state of the art 5-8 years ago? Do you have Exchange running on a 486-DX2 with 128MB of RAM? BTW, from a financial standpoint any system that old is already fully depreciated. I suspect your support costs for continuing to support systems that old, as well as the loss of productivity your users experience due to hardware this old. I agree with the Buy the biggest system you can now, but I'm just hoping to keep it running for 3 years until I've fully written it off the books. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Uh huh... Start back trackin now, you gotta long road to hoe... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I agree. The 5-8 years was a little far-fetched. However, I was simply trying to make a point. My goal is to get the most I can now. 3 years from now I'll do it again. And another point You guys are stuck on the mentality that I might be overpaying for something. I would like you to consider this. I don't know your situation but I personally have saved the company much more than I've convinced them to spend! -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization A system that is good for 5-8 years? So you are currently running systems that were state of the art 5-8 years ago? Do you have Exchange running on a 486-DX2 with 128MB of RAM? BTW, from a financial standpoint any system that old is already fully depreciated. I suspect your support costs for continuing to support systems that old, as well as the loss of productivity your users experience due to hardware this old. I agree with the Buy the biggest system you can now, but I'm just hoping to keep it running for 3 years until I've fully written it off the books. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I was merely referring to my experience. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. I have only been in the business 10 years. Much less than some of you on this list. However, during this time I've come to the conclusion that more is always better. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 10 years? 10 Years? 10 Years? 10 years? 10 friggin years? -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Not really. He states his opinion by flaming others opinions. Just seems rude to me but maybe that's just the way he is... -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:38 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. But wasn't Don merely stating *his* opinion? Or is it only ok for you to have one? You know, when you have one opinion, and the majority of a large list, like ohh this one, have another opinion, then you might consider it time to re-evaluate your opinion. Someone else actually stated their server load and you basically told them they were wrong. That is going beyond stating an opinion, each person here probably knows best of all what is running on their own servers. I've got one here with only 1 gig of ram and 2500 users. According to you, that's impossible, but you are free to come visit this site and count them and still see if you feel that way. -- Robert Moir, MSMVP IT Systems Engineer, Luton Sixth Form College Rules for sysadmins # 705: If I am in any doubt as to how a wildcard will expand I will echo it first. -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ 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
Then my point is taken. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Please, most of us here wrote the book on how to sell to management... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Yes Don, now stop using other peoples computers to read this list and get back to that coffee making ;0) Regards Mr Louis Joyce Network Support Analyst Exchange Administrator BT Ignite eSolutions -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:32 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yeah, I'm soo lacking in experience... I tell ya... -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Exchange Stores on 10 year old spindles ::SHUDDER:: Thinking about MTBF, you probably would have replaced the drives before the got that old. Thinking about replacing drives, I wonder about the odds of getting a *new* drive for a five year old server. eBay refurbished maybe... -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yes Exchange is critical and it the money is given accordingly. To spec a machine for 10(!) years would probably require us to either reduce services elsewhere or lose a member of staff as there is a finite budget. If I need something and can justify it with sensible business sense, I normally will get it. A server to last 10 years can simply not be justified. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:35 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
and this from a non-profit organization.. wow. Tom Gray, Network Engineer All Kinds of Minds The Center for Development and Learning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ATT Net: (919)960- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
-Original Message- From: Tom.Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:44 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization and this from a non-profit organization.. wow. Well if they don't have profits, they have to waste all that money on something else I guess! -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ 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
Maybe so... And your opinion is different, to say the least. All that really matters is that I'm happy with my setup and your happy with yours. Now the person whom originally posted the question has the opportunity to decide whether to implement your solution or mine. I am happy with my solution as are my users. Performance is awesome and the server runs smoothly. That means no late phone calls and no disgruntled users. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Your opinion sucks... But please, continue sharing. I needed a new whipping boy, Tener's not up to it... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
Is it just me or does it seem odd that you would get so upset about the hardware I choose to implement on my network? I'm not purchasing hardware and implementing it on your network. Although you probably wished I wereThen maybe you would have some decent servers. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Uh huh... Start back trackin now, you gotta long road to hoe... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I agree. The 5-8 years was a little far-fetched. However, I was simply trying to make a point. My goal is to get the most I can now. 3 years from now I'll do it again. And another point You guys are stuck on the mentality that I might be overpaying for something. I would like you to consider this. I don't know your situation but I personally have saved the company much more than I've convinced them to spend! -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization A system that is good for 5-8 years? So you are currently running systems that were state of the art 5-8 years ago? Do you have Exchange running on a 486-DX2 with 128MB of RAM? BTW, from a financial standpoint any system that old is already fully depreciated. I suspect your support costs for continuing to support systems that old, as well as the loss of productivity your users experience due to hardware this old. I agree with the Buy the biggest system you can now, but I'm just hoping to keep it running for 3 years until I've fully written it off the books. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Hey now. A non-profit organization that saves lives Everything is critical in the blood business. Ever heard of Hippa? -Original Message- From: Tom.Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization and this from a non-profit organization.. wow. Tom Gray, Network Engineer All Kinds of Minds The Center for Development and Learning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ATT Net: (919)960- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
*sigh* The reality is there is a large level of variance in terms of what one might want to spec out for a server. I think Mr. Murphy's specs are a tad high on RAM, but at the ATE sessions for MEC this year, I routinely ran into people who were asking about their E2K servers with 3GB of RAM At the moment memory is fairly inexpensive, so I suppose in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter all that much. Personally, I'd spend allocate some of those RAM dollars to redundant power supplies, good TBUs and a recovery server (assuming I was provisioning multiple machines of course). If memory prices were as low today as they were when we provisioned the machines at $vbc, we probably would have bought them with 2GB of RAM instead of one... although in hindsight some of that money would have been better spent on more, faster disks for that particular environment. In any event, a pissing contest over who can best provision an E2K box seems a bit silly, even for a Friday. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization A system that is good for 5-8 years? So you are currently running systems that were state of the art 5-8 years ago? Do you have Exchange running on a 486-DX2 with 128MB of RAM? BTW, from a financial standpoint any system that old is already fully depreciated. I suspect your support costs for continuing to support systems that old, as well as the loss of productivity your users experience due to hardware this old. I agree with the Buy the biggest system you can now, but I'm just hoping to keep it running for 3 years until I've fully written it off the books. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Funny, I have smooth running servers, happy users and happy management all in one big bundle. Are you saying that the more money spent, the better the systems run? Seems to be a rather ignorant perspective... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:50 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Maybe so... And your opinion is different, to say the least. All that really matters is that I'm happy with my setup and your happy with yours. Now the person whom originally posted the question has the opportunity to decide whether to implement your solution or mine. I am happy with my solution as are my users. Performance is awesome and the server runs smoothly. That means no late phone calls and no disgruntled users. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Your opinion sucks... But please, continue sharing. I needed a new whipping boy, Tener's not up to it... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
But the person who originally posted the question asked why it was running at high processor usage. The answer was 'by design' (though running performance optimizer is needed if it hasn't already been done). Unless there are any problems other than this feature, he doesn't need to implement any solution. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:50 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Maybe so... And your opinion is different, to say the least. All that really matters is that I'm happy with my setup and your happy with yours. Now the person whom originally posted the question has the opportunity to decide whether to implement your solution or mine. I am happy with my solution as are my users. Performance is awesome and the server runs smoothly. That means no late phone calls and no disgruntled users. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Your opinion sucks... But please, continue sharing. I needed a new whipping boy, Tener's not up to it... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I Spec systems for 8-10 years but they have their own internal nuclear power source :) PROFITLAB Network Engineer PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization A system that is good for 5-8 years? So you are currently running systems that were state of the art 5-8 years ago? Do you have Exchange running on a 486-DX2 with 128MB of RAM? BTW, from a financial standpoint any system that old is already fully depreciated. I suspect your support costs for continuing to support systems that old, as well as the loss of productivity your users experience due to hardware this old. I agree with the Buy the biggest system you can now, but I'm just hoping to keep it running for 3 years until I've fully written it off the books. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Yeah, he can come and count my 1000+ implementations as well... They're spread across the world though, so it might be an expensive trip for him... D -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:38 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. But wasn't Don merely stating *his* opinion? Or is it only ok for you to have one? You know, when you have one opinion, and the majority of a large list, like ohh this one, have another opinion, then you might consider it time to re-evaluate your opinion. Someone else actually stated their server load and you basically told them they were wrong. That is going beyond stating an opinion, each person here probably knows best of all what is running on their own servers. I've got one here with only 1 gig of ram and 2500 users. According to you, that's impossible, but you are free to come visit this site and count them and still see if you feel that way. -- Robert Moir, MSMVP IT Systems Engineer, Luton Sixth Form College Rules for sysadmins # 705: If I am in any doubt as to how a wildcard will expand I will echo it first. -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ 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
Stop it, stop it now! My memory is not high I am not on drugs! Bob Sadler City of Leawood, KS, USA Internet/WAN Specialist 913-339-6700 X194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization *sigh* The reality is there is a large level of variance in terms of what one might want to spec out for a server. I think Mr. Murphy's specs are a tad high on RAM, but at the ATE sessions for MEC this year, I routinely ran into people who were asking about their E2K servers with 3GB of RAM At the moment memory is fairly inexpensive, so I suppose in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter all that much. Personally, I'd spend allocate some of those RAM dollars to redundant power supplies, good TBUs and a recovery server (assuming I was provisioning multiple machines of course). If memory prices were as low today as they were when we provisioned the machines at $vbc, we probably would have bought them with 2GB of RAM instead of one... although in hindsight some of that money would have been better spent on more, faster disks for that particular environment. In any event, a pissing contest over who can best provision an E2K box seems a bit silly, even for a Friday. Chris -- Chris Scharff Senior Sales Engineer MessageOne If you can't measure, you can't manage! -Original Message- From: Doug Hampshire [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization A system that is good for 5-8 years? So you are currently running systems that were state of the art 5-8 years ago? Do you have Exchange running on a 486-DX2 with 128MB of RAM? BTW, from a financial standpoint any system that old is already fully depreciated. I suspect your support costs for continuing to support systems that old, as well as the loss of productivity your users experience due to hardware this old. I agree with the Buy the biggest system you can now, but I'm just hoping to keep it running for 3 years until I've fully written it off the books. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
More is not always better... Efficiency is always best! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I was merely referring to my experience. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. I have only been in the business 10 years. Much less than some of you on this list. However, during this time I've come to the conclusion that more is always better. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 10 years? 10 Years? 10 Years? 10 years? 10 friggin years? -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I haven't even begun to flame you! I'm sure there are those around here who will attest to that... It gets much better than this... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:43 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Not really. He states his opinion by flaming others opinions. Just seems rude to me but maybe that's just the way he is... -Original Message- From: Robert Moir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:38 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. But wasn't Don merely stating *his* opinion? Or is it only ok for you to have one? You know, when you have one opinion, and the majority of a large list, like ohh this one, have another opinion, then you might consider it time to re-evaluate your opinion. Someone else actually stated their server load and you basically told them they were wrong. That is going beyond stating an opinion, each person here probably knows best of all what is running on their own servers. I've got one here with only 1 gig of ram and 2500 users. According to you, that's impossible, but you are free to come visit this site and count them and still see if you feel that way. -- Robert Moir, MSMVP IT Systems Engineer, Luton Sixth Form College Rules for sysadmins # 705: If I am in any doubt as to how a wildcard will expand I will echo it first. -- This e-mail is intended for the addressee shown. It contains information that is confidential and protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons or unauthorized employees of the intended organisations is strictly prohibited. The contents of this email do not necessarily represent the views or policies of Luton Sixth Form College, its employees or students. _ 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
Damn it Don, you're just wrong. The more money you spend, the better your systems will run... that is if you spend large sums of money bringing me in to do a design and operations review. Bring me in for $230k to do a 2 week consulting gig and if you're not completely satisfied I'll refund .100% of your money. -- Chris Scharff The Mail Resource Center http://www.Mail-Resources.com The Home Page for Mail Administrators. Software pick of the month (Extended Reminders): http://www.slovaktech.com/extendedreminders.htm Exchange FAQs: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Funny, I have smooth running servers, happy users and happy management all in one big bundle. Are you saying that the more money spent, the better the systems run? Seems to be a rather ignorant perspective... D _ 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
Don: Can you send me a softcopy of that book? John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Believe nothing because it is written in books. Believe nothing because wise men say it is so. Believe nothing because it is religious doctrine. Believe it only because you yourself know it to be true. -- Buddha -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Please, most of us here wrote the book on how to sell to management... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
LMAO!! OK OK, you got me on that one. Of course, for that much money, I could do that myself. VBG D -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Damn it Don, you're just wrong. The more money you spend, the better your systems will run... that is if you spend large sums of money bringing me in to do a design and operations review. Bring me in for $230k to do a 2 week consulting gig and if you're not completely satisfied I'll refund .100% of your money. -- Chris Scharff The Mail Resource Center http://www.Mail-Resources.com The Home Page for Mail Administrators. Software pick of the month (Extended Reminders): http://www.slovaktech.com/extendedreminders.htm Exchange FAQs: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Funny, I have smooth running servers, happy users and happy management all in one big bundle. Are you saying that the more money spent, the better the systems run? Seems to be a rather ignorant perspective... D _ 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
I for one want to know how he got management to pay for it. Then maybe I could use the same methods to talk my wife into letting me buy a dual AMD 1900+, 2 GB RAM, 2x 120 GB disks (RAID of course), 18 TFT, 64 MB Ti 500 video card (or ATI 8500). PS. From what I have just read it should be just about suitable for playing Serious SAM. PPS Also like to be working there, his spec for a workstation would probably be the same as above... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:44 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Exchange Stores on 10 year old spindles ::SHUDDER:: Thinking about MTBF, you probably would have replaced the drives before the got that old. Thinking about replacing drives, I wonder about the odds of getting a *new* drive for a five year old server. eBay refurbished maybe... -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yes Exchange is critical and it the money is given accordingly. To spec a machine for 10(!) years would probably require us to either reduce services elsewhere or lose a member of staff as there is a finite budget. If I need something and can justify it with sensible business sense, I normally will get it. A server to last 10 years can simply not be justified. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:35 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Hmm. Well I guess the difference is I don't have to convince my wife to allow me to purchase something I just purchase it and let her know. As for management, I guess it comes down to track record. If you have a good track record with upper management and users it because easier every year to obtain what you want. Notice I said what you want. This is where the opinion of hardware is key. If you get to this point in life and decide to purchase an AMD system I suppose that's your choice. -Original Message- From: Veitch, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I for one want to know how he got management to pay for it. Then maybe I could use the same methods to talk my wife into letting me buy a dual AMD 1900+, 2 GB RAM, 2x 120 GB disks (RAID of course), 18 TFT, 64 MB Ti 500 video card (or ATI 8500). PS. From what I have just read it should be just about suitable for playing Serious SAM. PPS Also like to be working there, his spec for a workstation would probably be the same as above... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:44 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Exchange Stores on 10 year old spindles ::SHUDDER:: Thinking about MTBF, you probably would have replaced the drives before the got that old. Thinking about replacing drives, I wonder about the odds of getting a *new* drive for a five year old server. eBay refurbished maybe... -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yes Exchange is critical and it the money is given accordingly. To spec a machine for 10(!) years would probably require us to either reduce services elsewhere or lose a member of staff as there is a finite budget. If I need something and can justify it with sensible business sense, I normally will get it. A server to last 10 years can simply not be justified. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:35 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Dr. Dogg and myself are definitely two different people. While you say Sometimes I can be too direct., I am direct all of the time, I leave no room for interpretation. It's not to say either of us is correct, but you were very much incorrect in the way you made your definitive statement and it wasn't just to Dr. Dogg, you told others that their configs were wrong too. I'm sure all of us would like to have the most powerful servers alive in our server room, but we get paid to make the correct decision and we are trusted to make the correct decision. What if your company had a third party come in and analyze your network, then report to your management that your network was over spec'd. Your level of trust has just been dropped. My senior management trusts me to make good decisions and I frequently get asked if I'd bank my job on those decisions. My reply to that is I'll bank my job on any technical decision I make... I understand you think you're making a good decision, but there are always other ways to accomplish things... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
'Everything is critical' everything except fiscal responibility??? How many more lives could be saved by spending less money on IT equipment, leaving more for other parts of your business -- even if you had to work a little harder because of it tom -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Hey now. A non-profit organization that saves lives Everything is critical in the blood business. Ever heard of Hippa? -Original Message- From: Tom.Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization and this from a non-profit organization.. wow. Tom Gray, Network Engineer All Kinds of Minds The Center for Development and Learning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ATT Net: (919)960- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
More is NOT always better. More is OVERKILL more often than not. There are companies that run 486's as PDCs, and they work great. In fact, my last company had 3 domain controllers, two of which were P100 or slower. Overspecing a machine is as harmful as underspecing a machine. Go take a look at the DotBombs and that should be obvious - most spec'ed way too much server for what they needed, and they paid for it. The goal should be to get the right tool for the job. Yours appears to be to get the biggest tool for the job. 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 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I was merely referring to my experience. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. I have only been in the business 10 years. Much less than some of you on this list. However, during this time I've come to the conclusion that more is always better. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 10 years? 10 Years? 10 Years? 10 years? 10 friggin years? -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
mm biggest tool for the job... -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization More is NOT always better. More is OVERKILL more often than not. There are companies that run 486's as PDCs, and they work great. In fact, my last company had 3 domain controllers, two of which were P100 or slower. Overspecing a machine is as harmful as underspecing a machine. Go take a look at the DotBombs and that should be obvious - most spec'ed way too much server for what they needed, and they paid for it. The goal should be to get the right tool for the job. Yours appears to be to get the biggest tool for the job. 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 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I was merely referring to my experience. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. I have only been in the business 10 years. Much less than some of you on this list. However, during this time I've come to the conclusion that more is always better. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 10 years? 10 Years? 10 Years? 10 years? 10 friggin years? -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Maybe so, but you were wrong in telling Frazer that Your primary problem is hardware.. You made no mention of Dynamic Buffer Allocation and the fact that unless he is experiencing performance issues at the client, it's likely he doesn't have any problems at all. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
ROFL!!! We have a wiener!! -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization mm biggest tool for the job... -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization More is NOT always better. More is OVERKILL more often than not. There are companies that run 486's as PDCs, and they work great. In fact, my last company had 3 domain controllers, two of which were P100 or slower. Overspecing a machine is as harmful as underspecing a machine. Go take a look at the DotBombs and that should be obvious - most spec'ed way too much server for what they needed, and they paid for it. The goal should be to get the right tool for the job. Yours appears to be to get the biggest tool for the job. 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 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I was merely referring to my experience. I don't want to give anyone the wrong impression. I have only been in the business 10 years. Much less than some of you on this list. However, during this time I've come to the conclusion that more is always better. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 10 years? 10 Years? 10 Years? 10 years? 10 friggin years? -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Yes. I agree with the first paragraph. That's why I chose to apologize. However, make correct decisions can be based on your specific environment. Given the same problem we might all solve it a little differently. Some problems only have one answer. However, when it comes to hardware preference does matter. You might use Compaq whereas I prefer Dell, someone else might preference IBM. I prefer to throw more hardware at the solution. As for the auditing, my department is audited 4 times per year by an internal audit group and once per year by an external audit group. Every year I pass with flying colors. Why, server uptime and stability, application availability, services availability, etc Downtime reports are seldom to say the least. However, I'm not bragging. I'm simply trying to add credibility to my proposal for appropriate hardware solutions. It does not stop with the servers. I purchase the best cabling, best patch panels, best switches, best security options, best monitoring options, etc... that I can. In my opinion, if your having a problem with a system it's always a good time to evaluate your infrastructure and hardware to keep these problems from occurring in the first place. Thanks for the time. Murphy -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Dr. Dogg and myself are definitely two different people. While you say Sometimes I can be too direct., I am direct all of the time, I leave no room for interpretation. It's not to say either of us is correct, but you were very much incorrect in the way you made your definitive statement and it wasn't just to Dr. Dogg, you told others that their configs were wrong too. I'm sure all of us would like to have the most powerful servers alive in our server room, but we get paid to make the correct decision and we are trusted to make the correct decision. What if your company had a third party come in and analyze your network, then report to your management that your network was over spec'd. Your level of trust has just been dropped. My senior management trusts me to make good decisions and I frequently get asked if I'd bank my job on those decisions. My reply to that is I'll bank my job on any technical decision I make... I understand you think you're making a good decision, but there are always other ways to accomplish things... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
OMG!!! Are we having another nerd battle? Come on! If your feelings are hurt by what people say then please sign up a www.panzi.com Thank you, ___ John Bowles Exchange Administrator Enterprise Support Engineering Celera Genomics [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Ramsay, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Maybe so, but you were wrong in telling Frazer that Your primary problem is hardware.. You made no mention of Dynamic Buffer Allocation and the fact that unless he is experiencing performance issues at the client, it's likely he doesn't have any problems at all. Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
This is almost as interesting as hearing about Tener's monitor. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yes. I agree with the first paragraph. That's why I chose to apologize. However, make correct decisions can be based on your specific environment. Given the same problem we might all solve it a little differently. Some problems only have one answer. However, when it comes to hardware preference does matter. You might use Compaq whereas I prefer Dell, someone else might preference IBM. I prefer to throw more hardware at the solution. As for the auditing, my department is audited 4 times per year by an internal audit group and once per year by an external audit group. Every year I pass with flying colors. Why, server uptime and stability, application availability, services availability, etc Downtime reports are seldom to say the least. However, I'm not bragging. I'm simply trying to add credibility to my proposal for appropriate hardware solutions. It does not stop with the servers. I purchase the best cabling, best patch panels, best switches, best security options, best monitoring options, etc... that I can. In my opinion, if your having a problem with a system it's always a good time to evaluate your infrastructure and hardware to keep these problems from occurring in the first place. Thanks for the time. Murphy -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Dr. Dogg and myself are definitely two different people. While you say Sometimes I can be too direct., I am direct all of the time, I leave no room for interpretation. It's not to say either of us is correct, but you were very much incorrect in the way you made your definitive statement and it wasn't just to Dr. Dogg, you told others that their configs were wrong too. I'm sure all of us would like to have the most powerful servers alive in our server room, but we get paid to make the correct decision and we are trusted to make the correct decision. What if your company had a third party come in and analyze your network, then report to your management that your network was over spec'd. Your level of trust has just been dropped. My senior management trusts me to make good decisions and I frequently get asked if I'd bank my job on those decisions. My reply to that is I'll bank my job on any technical decision I make... I understand you think you're making a good decision, but there are always other ways to accomplish things... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Let's see. 1000 user per box. 800MB RAM. No issues here. So I should more than double my RAM and halve the number of users per box. And I thought I over engineered servers. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
We are Different people but we Most always agree. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Well, I have found something that we both agree on. I am very much a fan of Dell Servers. In fact, every server room I touch is covered in Dell Blue and Cisco Green. As for your infrastructure theory, that is what most of us are paid for. I'm not satisfied if I don't get 99.999% uptime out of my network. I don't do downtime and I certainly don't tolerate downtime. Neither do most of the folks here. We do like to have a life outside of our jobs so we make sure we place the correct hardware in our infrastructure. That does NOT mean, we place the most powerful server we can buy for 400 users. At one of my previous jobs, we ran close to a 1000 users on a PII 400 with 256MB of RAM. Never had any downtime or performance issues... As has been stated, YMMV, but I seriously doubt all that hardware was necessary for your 400 users D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yes. I agree with the first paragraph. That's why I chose to apologize. However, make correct decisions can be based on your specific environment. Given the same problem we might all solve it a little differently. Some problems only have one answer. However, when it comes to hardware preference does matter. You might use Compaq whereas I prefer Dell, someone else might preference IBM. I prefer to throw more hardware at the solution. As for the auditing, my department is audited 4 times per year by an internal audit group and once per year by an external audit group. Every year I pass with flying colors. Why, server uptime and stability, application availability, services availability, etc Downtime reports are seldom to say the least. However, I'm not bragging. I'm simply trying to add credibility to my proposal for appropriate hardware solutions. It does not stop with the servers. I purchase the best cabling, best patch panels, best switches, best security options, best monitoring options, etc... that I can. In my opinion, if your having a problem with a system it's always a good time to evaluate your infrastructure and hardware to keep these problems from occurring in the first place. Thanks for the time. Murphy -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Dr. Dogg and myself are definitely two different people. While you say Sometimes I can be too direct., I am direct all of the time, I leave no room for interpretation. It's not to say either of us is correct, but you were very much incorrect in the way you made your definitive statement and it wasn't just to Dr. Dogg, you told others that their configs were wrong too. I'm sure all of us would like to have the most powerful servers alive in our server room, but we get paid to make the correct decision and we are trusted to make the correct decision. What if your company had a third party come in and analyze your network, then report to your management that your network was over spec'd. Your level of trust has just been dropped. My senior management trusts me to make good decisions and I frequently get asked if I'd bank my job on those decisions. My reply to that is I'll bank my job on any technical decision I make... I understand you think you're making a good decision, but there are always other ways to accomplish things... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 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
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. -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]
Re: High Physical Memory Utilization
Ok, So my 266Mhz 512 KB server with a 38GB IS is an overkill ? ;) /P - Original Message - From: Don Ely [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:48 AM Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Well, I have found something that we both agree on. I am very much a fan of Dell Servers. In fact, every server room I touch is covered in Dell Blue and Cisco Green. As for your infrastructure theory, that is what most of us are paid for. I'm not satisfied if I don't get 99.999% uptime out of my network. I don't do downtime and I certainly don't tolerate downtime. Neither do most of the folks here. We do like to have a life outside of our jobs so we make sure we place the correct hardware in our infrastructure. That does NOT mean, we place the most powerful server we can buy for 400 users. At one of my previous jobs, we ran close to a 1000 users on a PII 400 with 256MB of RAM. Never had any downtime or performance issues... As has been stated, YMMV, but I seriously doubt all that hardware was necessary for your 400 users D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:47 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yes. I agree with the first paragraph. That's why I chose to apologize. However, make correct decisions can be based on your specific environment. Given the same problem we might all solve it a little differently. Some problems only have one answer. However, when it comes to hardware preference does matter. You might use Compaq whereas I prefer Dell, someone else might preference IBM. I prefer to throw more hardware at the solution. As for the auditing, my department is audited 4 times per year by an internal audit group and once per year by an external audit group. Every year I pass with flying colors. Why, server uptime and stability, application availability, services availability, etc Downtime reports are seldom to say the least. However, I'm not bragging. I'm simply trying to add credibility to my proposal for appropriate hardware solutions. It does not stop with the servers. I purchase the best cabling, best patch panels, best switches, best security options, best monitoring options, etc... that I can. In my opinion, if your having a problem with a system it's always a good time to evaluate your infrastructure and hardware to keep these problems from occurring in the first place. Thanks for the time. Murphy -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:23 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Dr. Dogg and myself are definitely two different people. While you say Sometimes I can be too direct., I am direct all of the time, I leave no room for interpretation. It's not to say either of us is correct, but you were very much incorrect in the way you made your definitive statement and it wasn't just to Dr. Dogg, you told others that their configs were wrong too. I'm sure all of us would like to have the most powerful servers alive in our server room, but we get paid to make the correct decision and we are trusted to make the correct decision. What if your company had a third party come in and analyze your network, then report to your management that your network was over spec'd. Your level of trust has just been dropped. My senior management trusts me to make good decisions and I frequently get asked if I'd bank my job on those decisions. My reply to that is I'll bank my job on any technical decision I make... I understand you think you're making a good decision, but there are always other ways to accomplish things... D -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Unless Don and Dr. Dogg are the same person I do not see your relevance. I made a definitive statement (accusation). Which, in hindsight, was inappropriate. Sometimes I can be too direct. I officially apologize to Dr. Dogg for that inappropriate statement. -Original Message- From: Hunter, Lori [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:53 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization You know, had you not sent out that quickie sharp comment no you don't when faced with Dr. Dogg's server specs, your opinion might hold some water. But when you start out the conversation confrontationally, basically accusing the fine doctor of lying to us all, you gets what you deserves. Your comment was not an opinion - Don's was. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:31 AM To: Exchange Discussions
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I agree. But I were running on a 100mb network, all switches, and the Exchange server is locally. Our internet connection is a T1. Saul And network bandwidth. You could have a 8x 1.5Ghz machine with 10GB of RAM and if you have a = 512K DSL connection and using RPC over the web, it will hang. You can run into that problem when you have an improperly configured = network too. Mike Carlson http://www.domitianx.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 -Original Message- From: missy koslosky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 8:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: High Physical Memory Utilization That's not memory causing that, it's sucky RPC. - Original Message -=20 From: Saul [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:57 PM Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization How many, and what speed is your processor on your Exchange Box? I am running 1gMhz, with 1g Ram, for about 200 users, and I still get = Requesting data from the Microsoft Exchange Server Share your secret on how you = do that? Thanks Saul _ 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
You sir get an A+ star for that opinion. You can go pick 2 things from the goodie box. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of McGilligan, Sean Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I'm afraid your sarcasm meter is broken. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Sean, I don't think you saw Andy's sarcasm tags. Maybe the thong he's wearing distracted you. On everything else you said I agree. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
It's got the flag of Bermuda on the front... -Original Message- From: Schwartz, Jim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Sean, I don't think you saw Andy's sarcasm tags. Maybe the thong he's wearing distracted you. On everything else you said I agree. -Original Message- From: McGilligan, Sean [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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
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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 400 Mailboxes and 1 gig of Ram does not sound
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Now If each of those users could find 4 more users, and those new users could all find 2 more users, and so on. You could have your self a nice network there. Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin Blackstone Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:16 AM 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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Ya, so. Does the rock have a thong? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:22 AM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I thought you had two rocks Andy. Did you loose one in that accident? -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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: High Physical Memory Utilization
Yeah! The Hungry Hungry ones? I used to love that game when I was a kid. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Hey now. A non-profit organization that saves lives Everything is critical in the blood business. Ever heard of Hippa? _ 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
Does it do house calls? I've got a headache now -Michèle, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - Kids today are impossible. Those duck tail haircuts make it impossible to stay groomed. Next thing you know, boys will be wearing their hair as long as the girls. -Comment made in the year 1957 - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:07 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I'm saving it for less headaches in the future. -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:14 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization What are you saving that 99% processor and 20% RAM for, exactly? -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war on terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people. -Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), 10/25/01 opposing the enactment of the USA-PATRIOT Act -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Excuse me for doubting but I can only base my assumptions on real world experience. I know for a fact that a typical Exchange Box with Mailboxes providing Mapi based services with a 4 gig priv will run around 800 meg ram utilization. With two processors and a raid controller on this box your would drastically reduce the disk i/o activity on this box which equates to cooler drives and a longer lasting exchange box. Maybe it's overkill but I'd much rather have an Exchange Box running at 1% processor utilization and have 20% of my physical ram free. Thanks. Brian Murphy, MCSE, CCNA, CCA Director of Network Services Privacy Officer Carter Bloodcare (www.carterbloodcare.org) 817.412.5406 -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Do you doubt the Word of the Dogg??? A spanking! A spanking!!! -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn't wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men? (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization No you don't. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
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: High Physical Memory Utilization
NAw.. that was HIPPO... He's talking about some dammed thing the Feds cooked up to sell computer hardware to the health care industry. John Matteson; Exchange Manager Geac Corporate Infrastructure Systems and Standards (404) 239 - 2981 Believe nothing because it is written in books. Believe nothing because wise men say it is so. Believe nothing because it is religious doctrine. Believe it only because you yourself know it to be true. -- Buddha -Original Message- From: Erik Sojka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yeah! The Hungry Hungry ones? I used to love that game when I was a kid. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:52 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Hey now. A non-profit organization that saves lives Everything is critical in the blood business. Ever heard of Hippa? _ 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
Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. In my experience, I have found that my upper management trusts me to recommend appropriate solutions for the simple reason that I don't waste their money by buying too big of a server for our needs. They know that it will cost less real money to buy what we need (with a bit of growth allowed) and then upgrade later when component prices have come down. If I get a great deal on some mondo equipment, great, we're golden, but otherwise I choose my money battles wisely. Also, critical big or in the case of your recommendation, abso-fscking-HUGE. -Michèle, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - You're telling Chris how to unsubscribe? Now that's funny. - Andy David, July 26, 2001 - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can. If your read the original post correctly you would have seen that I was making a recommendation. The recommendation allows for future growth of the database and the least amount of hardware problems. The fact that you consider the hardware to be overkill shows you lack of experience. I recommended a system that should last 5-8 years. What good does it do to spec a system that barely meets your current needs? In addition, you are chastising me for convincing higher ups to purchase a system that is in your opinion an overkillWouldn't this be considered an asset? Maybe you should evaluate your own tactics with upper management. -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 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I just purchase it and let her know. I sure hope she has the same privilege -Michèle, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - i don't do command performances for total strangers. - Kim Cameron, November 2, 2001 - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Hmm. Well I guess the difference is I don't have to convince my wife to allow me to purchase something I just purchase it and let her know. As for management, I guess it comes down to track record. If you have a good track record with upper management and users it because easier every year to obtain what you want. Notice I said what you want. This is where the opinion of hardware is key. If you get to this point in life and decide to purchase an AMD system I suppose that's your choice. -Original Message- From: Veitch, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:13 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I for one want to know how he got management to pay for it. Then maybe I could use the same methods to talk my wife into letting me buy a dual AMD 1900+, 2 GB RAM, 2x 120 GB disks (RAID of course), 18 TFT, 64 MB Ti 500 video card (or ATI 8500). PS. From what I have just read it should be just about suitable for playing Serious SAM. PPS Also like to be working there, his spec for a workstation would probably be the same as above... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:44 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Exchange Stores on 10 year old spindles ::SHUDDER:: Thinking about MTBF, you probably would have replaced the drives before the got that old. Thinking about replacing drives, I wonder about the odds of getting a *new* drive for a five year old server. eBay refurbished maybe... -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Yes Exchange is critical and it the money is given accordingly. To spec a machine for 10(!) years would probably require us to either reduce services elsewhere or lose a member of staff as there is a finite budget. If I need something and can justify it with sensible business sense, I normally will get it. A server to last 10 years can simply not be justified. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:35 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 11 January 2002 15:22 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization So because you cannot afford to spec a server appropriately you decide it's best to flame everyone else that can
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Well, as long as they're not telling him to put on the ring... At 04:14 PM 1/10/2002 -0600, Drewski wrote: Shhh! You'll drown out the other voices as well! -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as a heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors. --Abraham Lincoln -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:42 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Explorer talks to you? -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 4:38 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization 4079 recipients in the, opps just got 2 more, 4081 recipients. Taskmgr says I have 523,700 Total Physical memory, Explorer says my priv is 85,754,376kb Looks like I do? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 1:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization No you don't. -Original Message- From: Milton R Dogg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:19 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 4000 users running off of less then a Gig or ram. And almost a gig Page file. How many users you planning maintaining? Milton R Dogg Of The Dogg Foundation.. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:48 PM To: Exchange Discussions 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ 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
Exactly. You make a recommendation based on an appropriate solution to handle present needs in addition to future needs. Basing your buying decisions on the hope that prices would go down is like purchasing a small cap stock that trades on the ANDS. You have no idea what the prices of hardware are going to be 6 months from now. My original Exchange system has seen 3 mergers, and has continually been given new responsibilities without requiring additional hardware or hardware changes because I planned accordingly. One of those responsibilities added recently is to service our 1,000,000 plus donor recipients with monthly announcements from my Oracle Database. This responsibility adds quiet a significant overheadHowever, it's only once a month. Of coarse, some of you might argue the overhead would be caused from the WAN connection. This could be true I suppose, however, this is not the case because I have a dedicated T3 for my mail. But hopefully you see my point. Even though the additional overhead may not adversely affect the amount of RAM being utilized by the Information Store it does significantly affect your Disk IO performance if not configured properly. This equates to a higher processor utilization. My recommendation takes all of this into consideration. Hopefully this answers the question pondered earlier about the dual processor role. But listen guys... I believe in democracy. It appears that the majority of you believe in the least amount to perform to current expectations. So, I will limit my opinions whenever possible on this subject. Besides, I don't want to spend what's left of my vacation creating enemies in a discussion group I wish to participate in. However, there is something to be said for disagreements. At least it allows me to contemplate a different mind set when it comes to certain issues. For this, I thank you. Thanks for your time again. Murphy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. In my experience, I have found that my upper management trusts me to recommend appropriate solutions for the simple reason that I don't waste their money by buying too big of a server for our needs. They know that it will cost less real money to buy what we need (with a bit of growth allowed) and then upgrade later when component prices have come down. If I get a great deal on some mondo equipment, great, we're golden, but otherwise I choose my money battles wisely. Also, critical big or in the case of your recommendation, abso-fscking-HUGE. -Michèle, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - You're telling Chris how to unsubscribe? Now that's funny. - Andy David, July 26, 2001 - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies, then use it for some more money to upgrade/replace your server. Tristan Gayford Deputy Systems Network Manager Cranfield University at Silsoe -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Before you guys rip me a new one I meant to say NASD not ANDS! Sorry for the typo. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Exactly. You make a recommendation based on an appropriate solution to handle present needs in addition to future needs. Basing your buying decisions on the hope that prices would go down is like purchasing a small cap stock that trades on the ANDS. You have no idea what the prices of hardware are going to be 6 months from now. My original Exchange system has seen 3 mergers, and has continually been given new responsibilities without requiring additional hardware or hardware changes because I planned accordingly. One of those responsibilities added recently is to service our 1,000,000 plus donor recipients with monthly announcements from my Oracle Database. This responsibility adds quiet a significant overheadHowever, it's only once a month. Of coarse, some of you might argue the overhead would be caused from the WAN connection. This could be true I suppose, however, this is not the case because I have a dedicated T3 for my mail. But hopefully you see my point. Even though the additional overhead may not adversely affect the amount of RAM being utilized by the Information Store it does significantly affect your Disk IO performance if not configured properly. This equates to a higher processor utilization. My recommendation takes all of this into consideration. Hopefully this answers the question pondered earlier about the dual processor role. But listen guys... I believe in democracy. It appears that the majority of you believe in the least amount to perform to current expectations. So, I will limit my opinions whenever possible on this subject. Besides, I don't want to spend what's left of my vacation creating enemies in a discussion group I wish to participate in. However, there is something to be said for disagreements. At least it allows me to contemplate a different mind set when it comes to certain issues. For this, I thank you. Thanks for your time again. Murphy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. In my experience, I have found that my upper management trusts me to recommend appropriate solutions for the simple reason that I don't waste their money by buying too big of a server for our needs. They know that it will cost less real money to buy what we need (with a bit of growth allowed) and then upgrade later when component prices have come down. If I get a great deal on some mondo equipment, great, we're golden, but otherwise I choose my money battles wisely. Also, critical big or in the case of your recommendation, abso-fscking-HUGE. -Michèle, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - You're telling Chris how to unsubscribe? Now that's funny. - Andy David, July 26, 2001 - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going to get it for anything else that may need it (you never know what's around the corner). Its experience that is showing all of us that we don't need a server with a spec that high. If a change occurs that should suddenly change your user base or policies
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
And here I was about to rip you for your quiet significant overhead! wink -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-Outlook, CNA, MCPx3 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Before you guys rip me a new one I meant to say NASD not ANDS! Sorry for the typo. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Exactly. You make a recommendation based on an appropriate solution to handle present needs in addition to future needs. Basing your buying decisions on the hope that prices would go down is like purchasing a small cap stock that trades on the ANDS. You have no idea what the prices of hardware are going to be 6 months from now. My original Exchange system has seen 3 mergers, and has continually been given new responsibilities without requiring additional hardware or hardware changes because I planned accordingly. One of those responsibilities added recently is to service our 1,000,000 plus donor recipients with monthly announcements from my Oracle Database. This responsibility adds quiet a significant overheadHowever, it's only once a month. Of coarse, some of you might argue the overhead would be caused from the WAN connection. This could be true I suppose, however, this is not the case because I have a dedicated T3 for my mail. But hopefully you see my point. Even though the additional overhead may not adversely affect the amount of RAM being utilized by the Information Store it does significantly affect your Disk IO performance if not configured properly. This equates to a higher processor utilization. My recommendation takes all of this into consideration. Hopefully this answers the question pondered earlier about the dual processor role. But listen guys... I believe in democracy. It appears that the majority of you believe in the least amount to perform to current expectations. So, I will limit my opinions whenever possible on this subject. Besides, I don't want to spend what's left of my vacation creating enemies in a discussion group I wish to participate in. However, there is something to be said for disagreements. At least it allows me to contemplate a different mind set when it comes to certain issues. For this, I thank you. Thanks for your time again. Murphy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. In my experience, I have found that my upper management trusts me to recommend appropriate solutions for the simple reason that I don't waste their money by buying too big of a server for our needs. They know that it will cost less real money to buy what we need (with a bit of growth allowed) and then upgrade later when component prices have come down. If I get a great deal on some mondo equipment, great, we're golden, but otherwise I choose my money battles wisely. Also, critical big or in the case of your recommendation, abso-fscking-HUGE. -Michèle, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - You're telling Chris how to unsubscribe? Now that's funny. - Andy David, July 26, 2001 - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Man. Now I'm really going to get it. I meant NASDAQ not NASD... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Before you guys rip me a new one I meant to say NASD not ANDS! Sorry for the typo. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Exactly. You make a recommendation based on an appropriate solution to handle present needs in addition to future needs. Basing your buying decisions on the hope that prices would go down is like purchasing a small cap stock that trades on the ANDS. You have no idea what the prices of hardware are going to be 6 months from now. My original Exchange system has seen 3 mergers, and has continually been given new responsibilities without requiring additional hardware or hardware changes because I planned accordingly. One of those responsibilities added recently is to service our 1,000,000 plus donor recipients with monthly announcements from my Oracle Database. This responsibility adds quiet a significant overheadHowever, it's only once a month. Of coarse, some of you might argue the overhead would be caused from the WAN connection. This could be true I suppose, however, this is not the case because I have a dedicated T3 for my mail. But hopefully you see my point. Even though the additional overhead may not adversely affect the amount of RAM being utilized by the Information Store it does significantly affect your Disk IO performance if not configured properly. This equates to a higher processor utilization. My recommendation takes all of this into consideration. Hopefully this answers the question pondered earlier about the dual processor role. But listen guys... I believe in democracy. It appears that the majority of you believe in the least amount to perform to current expectations. So, I will limit my opinions whenever possible on this subject. Besides, I don't want to spend what's left of my vacation creating enemies in a discussion group I wish to participate in. However, there is something to be said for disagreements. At least it allows me to contemplate a different mind set when it comes to certain issues. For this, I thank you. Thanks for your time again. Murphy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. In my experience, I have found that my upper management trusts me to recommend appropriate solutions for the simple reason that I don't waste their money by buying too big of a server for our needs. They know that it will cost less real money to buy what we need (with a bit of growth allowed) and then upgrade later when component prices have come down. If I get a great deal on some mondo equipment, great, we're golden, but otherwise I choose my money battles wisely. Also, critical big or in the case of your recommendation, abso-fscking-HUGE. -Michèle, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - You're telling Chris how to unsubscribe? Now that's funny. - Andy David, July 26, 2001 - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don - lack of experience - ouch! The real world has to adapt. I could spend far too much money on a server that should last 5-8 years. But then I would rather spend money on a server that suits the company needs now and for the next 3-4 years and replace it with one after that time. And if I ask for silly money now, I am not going
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I hear ya. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:46 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Don't worry. We all dozed off a long time ago. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 2:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Man. Now I'm really going to get it. I meant NASDAQ not NASD... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Before you guys rip me a new one I meant to say NASD not ANDS! Sorry for the typo. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Exactly. You make a recommendation based on an appropriate solution to handle present needs in addition to future needs. Basing your buying decisions on the hope that prices would go down is like purchasing a small cap stock that trades on the ANDS. You have no idea what the prices of hardware are going to be 6 months from now. My original Exchange system has seen 3 mergers, and has continually been given new responsibilities without requiring additional hardware or hardware changes because I planned accordingly. One of those responsibilities added recently is to service our 1,000,000 plus donor recipients with monthly announcements from my Oracle Database. This responsibility adds quiet a significant overheadHowever, it's only once a month. Of coarse, some of you might argue the overhead would be caused from the WAN connection. This could be true I suppose, however, this is not the case because I have a dedicated T3 for my mail. But hopefully you see my point. Even though the additional overhead may not adversely affect the amount of RAM being utilized by the Information Store it does significantly affect your Disk IO performance if not configured properly. This equates to a higher processor utilization. My recommendation takes all of this into consideration. Hopefully this answers the question pondered earlier about the dual processor role. But listen guys... I believe in democracy. It appears that the majority of you believe in the least amount to perform to current expectations. So, I will limit my opinions whenever possible on this subject. Besides, I don't want to spend what's left of my vacation creating enemies in a discussion group I wish to participate in. However, there is something to be said for disagreements. At least it allows me to contemplate a different mind set when it comes to certain issues. For this, I thank you. Thanks for your time again. Murphy -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. In my experience, I have found that my upper management trusts me to recommend appropriate solutions for the simple reason that I don't waste their money by buying too big of a server for our needs. They know that it will cost less real money to buy what we need (with a bit of growth allowed) and then upgrade later when component prices have come down. If I get a great deal on some mondo equipment, great, we're golden, but otherwise I choose my money battles wisely. Also, critical big or in the case of your recommendation, abso-fscking-HUGE. -Michèle, MOS+BP, TSCSP, soon to be a California Girl Immigration site: http://LadySun1969.tripod.com The Miata has gone to live with Grandma for a little while: http://members.cardomain.com/bpituley Tiggercam: http://www.tiggercam.co.uk - You're telling Chris how to unsubscribe? Now that's funny. - Andy David, July 26, 2001 - -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:35 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I guess it depends on your situation. If policy dictates that Exchange Server is classified as a critical system I would think you would want to spec the system appropriately. Secondly, getting what you want from upper management is a skill and requires good salesmanship and good political tactics. I would think you guys and gals would consider this an asset. If I can get a nice, big, powerful server...I'm going to do it. -Original Message- From: Tristan Gayford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday
