You might also consider setting up a LoadSim job and let that beat on the box for awhile. I generally set it up for about 2X the load I anticipate my users will put on the box. Make sure you've got a perfmon session running against the box remotely incase the box pukes.
Tom. -----Original Message----- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil Don, It's a Mylex 350 with 64Mb cache (currently all logical drives set for write-thru). It occurs to me now to mention that although eseutil has sometimes ended prematurely with what I would regard as hardware related errors, Exchange itself runs fine, even when I select masses of mailboxes and delete them. Roger -----Original Message----- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2001 14:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil Eseutil is well known for beating the hell out of RAID controllers. If you have a poor one, eseutil will be the first to tell you. What kind of RAID card is it? What kind of cache does it have? Does it support a really heavy load of disk I/O's? -----Original Message----- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil Folks, I'm interested in peoples' experience with eseutil, especially integrity and defrag modes. I'm commissioning new hardware and, because of some Mylex controller trouble at the start, I'm restoring EXS 5.5 SP3 (plus store fix) stores and directory and then running eseutil defrag and integrity checks. Thereafter I'll delete hundreds of mailboxes and then again defrag and run integrity checks. The whole point is to generate a lot of disk activity to stress the disk subsystem. The results are not too satisfactory as I'm getting a (admittedly low) level of read failures and sometimes checksum failures. Because all this takes a great deal of time due to the size of the database and the restore/defrag etc times I'm not yet getting a picture which is sufficiently clear to allow me to be absolutely certain it is hardware alone which is the culprit. Suggestions that eseutil is flawed have been aired as a distraction from the hardware being the culprit. I'm wondering if anyone has any views of this type of thing compared with real life operations. The difficulty I'm in is convincing the supplier I've got a low level hardware problem, not a software problem. Any experiences you can relate would be appreciated. Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _________________________________________________________________ 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]
