We are probably going to be upgrading our mail server from Exchange 5.5 SP4
soon so that we can go to an unlimited information store. Today, while we
are getting (for us) hammered by the new viruses, my server is currently
running at no more than 50% cpu utilization for a dual P3-850 box with 1.1GB
ram. That figure includes running a manual scan while real time scanning is
in progress using ScanMail 3.8. This leads me to believe that if I could get
big enough disks for this server I could probably get away with not
upgrading the server itself. Or if I can't, that I don't really need a huge
honking workhorse for this job. We have 22 users who send a fair amount of
mail and who keep everything and think nothing of sending 25MB or larger
files to each other left and right. But there are only 22 of them.

What do you folks think about my server sizing conclusion? Microsoft says
Exchange 2003 will run on "Pentium or compatible, 733 Mhz or better" under
"Recommended". "Minimum" is laughable. What I wanted to ask you folks for
was a real world "yeah, your box is under-used right now processor-wise and
will be able to handle Exchange 2003" or a real world, "no, you want to keep
processor utilization under 10% at all times" or "no, Exchange 2003 says it
will run on 733s but it will be underpowered with anything less than dual P4
1.8Ghz" or whatever.

Thanks!

Ronni

*********************************
If You Can't Learn To Do Something Well, Learn to Enjoy Doing It Poorly
---------------------------------

_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ:       http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe:         mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at:
Jupitermedia Corp.
Attn: Discussion List Management
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.

Reply via email to