I got a rock.
-----Original Message----- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 1:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization I have 60 users.... -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:08 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization Let's see - I have about 10 servers around the world that are 1GB machines with 300-500 users on them - with 100MB limits. His hardware is fine. ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Senior Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA http://www.peregrine.com > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:52 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > Nope. Disagree. This problem could have been avoided with > proper implementation of hardware..... "In my opinion". > > My solution is not to throw hardware at a problem. My > solution is to implement a proper hardware solution in the > beginning! I was not trying to solve the person's problem. > I simply made an statement reflecting my opinion that they > should evaluate their hardware. > > 400 users and 1 gig of ram did not seem like an appropriate > solution that would provide current stability and room for > future growth. Besides, who wants to replace their Exchange > Server Hardware every 2 years? What's wrong with building a > system that will last 3-4 years reliably? Are you guys > saying this is a bad thing? It sure seems that way. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:34 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > No - you were not giving an opinion. You were giving an > ill-conceived solution to a stated problem. > > People who have been here pick up on who to listen to and to > whom they should not listen. Not everyone has been here that long. > > Fortunately, for the person who originally asked the > question, a few of us who do know good solutions addressed to > the specific problems. It would appear that your first > solution is to throw hardware at the problem. I used to think > the same thing. 5 Years ago. Before I learned a LOT about > this stuff. Roger > ------------------------------------------------------ > Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE > Senior Systems Administrator > Peregrine Systems > Atlanta, GA > http://www.peregrine.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 10:31 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: High Physical Memory Utilization > > > > > > And another comment Mr. Ely..... > > > > Let's keep this in mind next time you decide to flame me or someone > > else on the list. > > > > I'm simply giving my opinion. Acceptance is optional. I'm giving > > my opinion of a server spec for exchange server that in "my opinion" > > has giving me the best level of performance and least amount of > > headaches over a 10 year period. Whether you choose this type of > > hardware is irrelevant being that I'm the one stating an opinion. > > > > You have the option of lending your alternative option to the > > discussion. This would give the person whom made the original post > > more alternatives. > > > > Second, I have never claimed to be the foremost expert on Exchange > > Server. I am here with an open mind and willing and needing to learn > > just like everyone else. However, I do intend to post my opinions. > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > > > -----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] > _________________________________________________________________ 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] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. ============================================================================== _________________________________________________________________ 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]
