I guess talking to MS is like calling the IRS for us U.S. folks. Depends on who you talk to affects what kind of answer you get. Our discussions with PSS and the Exchange folks at MS was that it was an issue and we'd see degraded performance over time. We erred on the cautious side.
Heck, we're bankrupt so "O/S upgrades for everyone!" Diane -----Original Message----- From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 3:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT Sorry, I didn't mean I have always ignored it. I researched the heck out of it, discussed it with PSS and with other Exchange MVPs, and found it to be harmless both in theory and practice. So having performed due diligence and discovered that /in a non-clustered, non-Win2k Adv. Srvr environment/ it can be safely ignored, I now safely ignore it. And I didn't have to waste the taxpayers' money for an OS upgrade that I don't need. -tom > -----Original Message----- > From: Ayers, Diane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 03:05 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > Cool. Unfortunately once messaging becomes a mission > critical application in the enterprise, I can not ignore > errors reported by the operating system. YMMV however... > > Diane > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Meunier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:57 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > I disagree, in theory and in practice. The "problem" I > experience is that it logs an event telling me it's > fragmented. Which I ignore. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ayers, Diane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:03 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > > > > I agree with Ken. We ran into a memory fragmentation problem > > with E2K on Win2K standard server. If you have more than 1 > > GB of memory with E2K, you need to run Win2K advanced. > > > > Thread Drify Diane > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:45 AM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > > > > Yes, it can "handle" it, but it won't use it in a meaningful > > way. Windows 2000 will only allocate a max of 2GB of address > > space to applications using the rest for operating system use > > unless the "/3GB" is used in the boot.ini file (available in > > advance server only). > > > > Indeed, some applications (like exchange) get confused if > > there is more memory in the machine than it can get to. See > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q266096 > > for details. This Q article is for exchange 2000, but I think > > it applies to 5.5 as well. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Salandra, Justin A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 11:24 AM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > > > > W2k Server can handle up to 4GB of Mem before you need to go > > to ADV Server > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ken Cornetet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 12:20 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > > You would also need advance server if your server has more > > than 2GB or so of memory. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Salandra, Justin A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:30 AM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > > > > But not if it is just one exchange server on one windows server? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David M Ha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 10:29 AM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > > You will need W2K AS if you want to run a cluster. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Salandra, Justin A. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 9:12 AM > > > To: ActiveDir (E-mail) > > > Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange Std to ENT > > > > > > > > > Can someone direct me to a Q article that shows to steps > to upgrade > > > from Exchange 5.5 STD to 5.5 ENT? > > > > > > Plus, Exchange 5.5 ENT doesn't require W2K Advanced > Server right? I > > > read that when Exchange was installed on nt4 that the ENT > version of > > > 5.5 needed to be installed on the Enterprise version of NT4. > > > > > > Justin A. Salandra, MCSE > > > Senior Network Engineer > > > Catholic Healthcare System > > > 914.681.8117 office > > > 646.483.3325 cell > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > > List archive: > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > List info : > > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > > List info : > http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
