Not that it makes it OK - because it doesn't - but much of what we call MOC (Microsoft Official Curriculum) is not written by Microsoft. It's written by a number of companies (recently, some includes even me!) that specialize in producing courseware or "dumbing down" highly technical data into something usable by your 'average Joe'.
Once the courseware company completes the work, they hand it over to Microsoft, who then massages it to fit the preconceived notion they have of what courseware should look like. And, sometimes, this is just wrong. I recently produced a document to be used in an upcoming training course where the Microsoft consultant responsible for reviewing the content disagreed with something I wrote. I am NOT suggesting that I know EVERYTHING - because I don't. Not by far. Believe me, I make mistakes all the time. But in this case, I _knew_ I was right and she was wrong. It took getting someone involved on the product team involved before she would believe me... And I can tell you - I don't think that most courseware people will go to that effort. It's not worth it. If I had it to do over, I probably would've let the point slide. So...that would be a v1 error that might - or might not - get corrected in v2 of the courseware. Depends on who does the update and who reviews it. No process is perfect. I took an electronic version of a v1 MOC course early this year and I bugged 82 errors. Yes, 82. And that courseware was produced by a very reputable supplier. Regards, Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange -----Original Message----- From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 4:43 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration ...covered with your own dog food. On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > roflwaffles > > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Matt Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Right way, wrong way then the Microsoft way. >> M >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Michael B. Smith >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 11:13 AM >> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >> >> This is an argument I've had with many IT folks who just went to various >> Microsoft MCP and MCSE classes where they say "separate the volumes" but >> don't every say WHY and under what conditions to do so. >> >> >> >> Five minutes with a whiteboard generally convinces them. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >> >> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >> >> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >> >> >> >> From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 1:35 PM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: Re: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >> >> >> >> Where were you when my predecessor setup our sbs? >> >> Because I was an accountant (disregarding my 12 years of IT experience, the >> last 7 of which were with Windows servers and Exchange) he completely >> ignored my recommendation of not creating logical drives to split swap, >> logs, application, database and os. Guess how many partitions there are, >> and how many raid volumes? :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Michael B. Smith >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> IF you are using separate physical volumes. >> >> Creating a separate logical volume gains you nothing (performance-wise). >> >> Regards, >> >> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:57 AM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >> >> I've always heard best practice is to separate out the stores and logs, >> and if you have the hardware, the swap and tmp, too. >> >> -Paul >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:04 AM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >> >> If you are presuming that that is because the boot volume might fill up >> because of log files - well, my opinion is that you should be monitoring >> that situation. >> >> And if you aren't, serves you right. >> >> Regards, >> >> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: farooq.ahmed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:57 AM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >> >> yes , i agree but seperating logs might be benificial. >> ________________________________ >> From: Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 8:53 PM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >> >> I wouldn't make that so complicated. >> >> C: OS, applications, logs, pagefile >> D: exchange db >> >> While I always encourage people to "buy high", that's significantly more >> "oomph" than you'll need for 75 users. >> >> Regards, >> >> Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP >> My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael >> Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange >> >> From: Matt Plahtinsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:33 AM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: Exchange 2007 Drive Configuration >> >> Just checking to see if this is the best way to utilize the drives that >> I >> have in this server for Exchange 2007. >> >> My only question is about the Exchange Install drive. How much room >> should >> I use and does it grow at all? >> >> Organization >> One Exchange server 75 mailboxes >> >> Server >> Exchange 2007 on Server 2008 >> Dell PowerEdge 2950 >> 2 quad core 2.0ghz processors >> 8 Gb of RAM >> 2 x 15k 73Gb Drives >> 4 x 15k 146Gb Drives >> >> >> RAID 1 = 2 73GB Drives >> - OS, Exchange Install, Exchange log Files >> C: 20Gb OS >> D: 10Gb Exchange Install >> E: 40Gb Exchange Log Files >> >> >> RAID 5 = 4 x 146GB Drives >> - Page File, Exchange DB >> F: 10Gb Page File >> G: 400Gb Exchange DB >> >> >> Thanks for your input >> >> Matt >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >> >> >> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >> >> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >> >> >> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ >> ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > -- > ME2 > -- ME2 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
