, 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
-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
-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
-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
.
-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
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
-
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
\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
-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
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
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
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
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
] [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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
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
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
: 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
: [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
? 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
: 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
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
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
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
...
-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
] [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
-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
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
-
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
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
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
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
]]
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
: 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
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
: 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
: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
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
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
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
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
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
. 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
: 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
, 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
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
: [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
-
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
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
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
-
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
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
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
]
-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
.
-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
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
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
-
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
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
:[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
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
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
: 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
: 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
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
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
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
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
://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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-
-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
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
: 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
-
-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
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
: 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
-
-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
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
]]
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 144 matches
Mail list logo
