*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 > overkill....Wouldn'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: 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]
