|
Just guessing, but it had more real data, note that it is
2GB bigger than the first when done.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony Murray Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 4:39 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Exchange 2003 SP1 bloat: Results Thanks for posting this Douglas. Any thoughts on why
the smaller DB (DatabaseB) took longer to defrag that the larger
one?
Tony From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Douglas M. Long Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2005 1:50 a.m. To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Exchange 2003 SP1 bloat: Results Thought I would let you
know how my experience with this went: Server 2003
SP1 Exchange 2003
SP1 2 x 2.8GHz HT
Xeons 4GB
RAM Direct attached 5 X
73.4GB hard drives, RAID5---IBM 6M controller Both ran with the
following syntax:
eseutil.exe /d f:\blahblah\DB DatabaseA was 94GB
before defrag
12GB after defrag
Time elapsed: 76 minutes DatabaseB was 20GB
before defrag
14GB after defrag
Time elapsed: 99 minutes If there are any stats
that I left out that you may find interesting, let me
know. Thanks everyone for
your comments and explanations with this. I learned a lot.
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared by NetIQ MailMarshal at Gen-i Limited |
Title: RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Exchange 2003 SP1 bloat
- RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Exchange 2003 SP1 bloat: Results Tony Murray
- RE: [ActiveDir] OT:Exchange 2003 SP1 bloat: Results joe
