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. 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. :-) 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
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 h
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
-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
The original question didn't say anything about mass mailings to a million people, so your point that his machine was underpowered still is wrong. Do you have any more excuses for us? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:31 AM 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 mon
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
One time. In band camp... Mike Carlson http://www.domitianx.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:49 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I once had 1000 users as well. But it was in Egypt. I was running the messaging system for the pyramid building project. We were running Glyphmail 1.5. Talk about a PITA. My server was made out of solid stone. Someone would hammer a message into a sheet of sandstone. Then lay it on the server. Then 50 guys would carry the whole server to the recipient. We were supposed to have 200 guys, but there was a mass killing of the slaves that year and we had to make due. Done even get me started on disaster recovery! -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I once had about 1,000 users with a 70GB store running on a dual Pentium Pro 200MHz ProLiant system that had only 256MB RAM. It worked fine. We had to run that way because the box came with missing memory. We didn't upgrade the memory (to 768MB) for a few weeks. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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 pos
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
That will serve you well until someone points out to your management how much extra money you spent than you really needed. You can fool some of the people some of the time... Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [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 oth
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Your opinion is wrong. It may be your opinion, but it is still wrong. And in this list, you are fair game to be called wrong. If you get argumentative about it, and are still wrong, you are fair game for much more. A current server model with 1 GB RAM is very likely to be very adequate for a 400-user Exchange server. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:52 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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Buying a grossly overpowered machine to last five to eight years is poor financial management. Hardware increases in performance and decreases in price very rapidly. Buying more computer assets than you need is extremely foolish. It's much like buying two cars instead of one because you think you'll need another one in four years, so you'll keep it in the garage until then. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [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:
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I have only been in the business over 20 years, with EECS and MBA degrees. And if I had any oversight over you, I'd never accept any hardware recommendation from you. You'd be relegated to the back room, if not fired outright. You are completely unqualified to be architecting solutions. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
To the contrary, Mr. Murphy, the record shows that you were going the extra mile. You went way beyond giving your opinion: 1. To Mr. Dogg's statement: "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?" You replied: "No you don't." That is not an opinion, that is an accusation of dishonesty. 2. Your first reply in this thread was, "400 Mailboxes and 1 gig of Ram does not sound right. Your primary problem is hardware." That is a diagnosis. When you make a faulty diagnosis--and it IS a faulty diagnosis--you deserve to be flamed, and particularly in this case, royally. There is no way any competent Windows and/or Exchange engineer would come to such a conclusion based on the original question. So the insinuation that you might be smoking crack has more evidence to support it than your conclusion that the hardware is underpowered. Ed Crowley Compaq Computer -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
You made your point, all right. Your point is foolish and will serve you poorly down the road. You have spent far too much money--real money--on a very rapidly depreciating asset (check out the prices of three-year-old servers on eBay). Perhaps you have saved your company money in other ways; I wouldn't know whether that is true or not. But being right in one area doesn't make you right in this one. And, my friend, you are not right in this example. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [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 mailbo
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
And wrong too. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -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 posti
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
Oversized does not equate to appropriate. Appropriate means the right sized equipment for the job. It's fine to anticipate growth and plan accordingly. Your philosophy, as you have stated it, goes well beyond that. Your day will come when your manager (or his manager) calls a third party in to audit your operations. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [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 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.
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I once had 1000 users as well. But it was in Egypt. I was running the messaging system for the pyramid building project. We were running Glyphmail 1.5. Talk about a PITA. My server was made out of solid stone. Someone would hammer a message into a sheet of sandstone. Then lay it on the server. Then 50 guys would carry the whole server to the recipient. We were supposed to have 200 guys, but there was a mass killing of the slaves that year and we had to make due. Done even get me started on disaster recovery! -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 8:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I once had about 1,000 users with a 70GB store running on a dual Pentium Pro 200MHz ProLiant system that had only 256MB RAM. It worked fine. We had to run that way because the box came with missing memory. We didn't upgrade the memory (to 768MB) for a few weeks. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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/r
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
I once had about 1,000 users with a 70GB store running on a dual Pentium Pro 200MHz ProLiant system that had only 256MB RAM. It worked fine. We had to run that way because the box came with missing memory. We didn't upgrade the memory (to 768MB) for a few weeks. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant Compaq Computer Corporation Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Don Ely Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 6:38 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mai
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
It is very possible the 4 other servers in the site had a memory limit imposed the last time Performance Optimizer was ran. As Mr. Steve Ramsay said, the high memory utilization is due to Dynamic Buffer Allocation. This is explained on page 617 of "Managing Microsoft Exchange Server" (ISBN:1565925459). Also see section 4.2.3, Dynamic Buffer Allocation, in "Microsoft Exchange Server 5.5" (ISBN:182133). A search of TechNet for "Dynamic Buffer Allocation" give several hits for the Exchange product. Jerry W. Hubbard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > -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
You took this all very well. Good job. 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 11:31 AM 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 aroun
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 as
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, January 11, 2002 9:29 AM To: Ex
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
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
And here I was about to rip you for your "quiet" significant overhead! -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
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 experi
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. --
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] >
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. > > --
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:
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
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 Mess
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
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
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 Mes
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 > >
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, Lo
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 L
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 eSolut
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 &g
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 > > > 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] > > > -- >
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 > > > 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
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 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] Excha
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 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: h
RE: High Physical Memory Utilization
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:
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
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:
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
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
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 someo
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.
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 o
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 E
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 col
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
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
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 >
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.
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 Messag
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 re
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/
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] AT&T 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 con
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 S
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 ov
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:
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
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. 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
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 Serv
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
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
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
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.
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
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 Arch
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/sitese
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
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- >
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] _
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] AT&T 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 notice
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
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: mailt
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
Funny, I could swear I'm on my own personal laptop on my own personal time right now... D -Original Message- From: Joyce, Louis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 7:39 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: 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 a
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] AT&T 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 o
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 seco
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 PR
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
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
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:
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:
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_fa
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:[EM
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 ot
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
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] _
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
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:[EM
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 unsu
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
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]
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:
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]
