RE: 2000 server sizing.

[Ken . Powell]

Title: Message

That is pretty much what I have been hearing.   Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -----Original Message----- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:58 PM To: Exchange - Sunbelt Subject: RE: 2000 server sizing.   I don't think so.  Clustering as it is today seems excessive to me.  But future versions may be better suited to real clustering.   -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: 2000 server sizing. Is there really that much of a benefit versus the cost for setting E2K up in a cluster? And what about using a SAN? I have heard that it may be better configured over multiple spindles with a combination of mirroring the transaction logs, taking the system, binary and swap files out of RAID and leaving the message databases in RAID5. Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001 -----Original Message----- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 5:05 PM To: Exchange - Sunbelt Subject: RE: 2000 server sizing.   On good hardware, Exchange2000 clustered works well.  I think the issue was with Active/Active.  Ew.   Active/Passive with 2500 users should be no problem on good hardware.   You could consider deploying a FrontEnd/BackEnd scenario as well to offload some duty to a front end server.   William -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2002 4:45 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: 2000 server sizing. We have finally implemented AD and are now looking into migrating to E2K. Currently I have 7 boxes set up to handle Exchange 5.5.   5 for user mailboxes (about 500 users each) 1 for Public Folders 1 for IMS   I have posted before asking if anyone was using Exchange 2000 in a clustering or SAN configuration. I seem to remember that some had said that they found a benefit to connecting to the SAN but that there seemed to be a consensus that Exchange did not really do well in a clustering environment for a site of 2500 users. Is this correct?   That being the case I am looking at bringing E2k up on a Dell 4600 2GHz/512k XEON with 2GB memory and 4x74GB RAID drives. Has anyone had any experience running Exchange on that type of hardware and size? Also, when I first brought up my 5.5 site we were told to keep it at about 500 mailboxes per server. Do I still need to follow that with 2000?   I know that there are a lot of variables and that there is no one right setup for everyone, but I am going in the right direction?     Ken Powell Systems Administrator Clark County Office of Budget and Information Services (OBIS) Vancouver, Washington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Voice: (360) 397-6121 x4658 Fax: (360) 759-6001   List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm List Charter and FAQ at: http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm