You've been talking about local and remote DC sites... is this a reference simply to physical location, or does your Active Directory Sites and Services topology reflect it, as well?
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 12:12 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange performance I'm about to head off to bed again--had to get up and restart a couple of servers at client sites after updates were applied, so I'm not looking it up, but you should be able to set a default DC for Exchange to talk with. Do that, if one is not already set, for one of the DC's local to the Exchange server. Then you can concentrate on that one server to determine why it may be getting long reply times, if they still exist. Also check to make sure all the DC's listed actually exist. I remember one case that one of the other guys had where a DC crashed hard and was replaced using a different name, and Exchange was still looking for the original server. \\Steve// -----Original Message----- From: Travis Krampy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 7:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Exchange performance Here is something interesting, i ran the troubleshooting tool again and now it was trying to connect to 12 remote DC's for the LDAP test... Travis "Steve Szabo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Is your Exchange looking at a local domain controller, or is it looking to > one of the remote domain controllers? I'd probably check that first, > because > if it is going through a small pipe with a lot of traffic, that could be > part of your delay for the lookup. > > \\Steve// > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Travis Krampy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 5:39 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Exchange performance > > This place has 61 Domain controllers. > > 2 at the main site (which is where this exchange server that I am working > on > > is located) > > and 1-2 DC's per remote location (40 some remote locations) > > Each remote location is connected via 128K line or smaller. > > As why they are so busy, i have no idea, ill have to look and see why...my > guess is too much replication traffic, but thats just a guess right now > > Travis > > "Michael B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>I think you need to worry about your LDAP performance first. That's crappy >> LDAP response time. How many DCs do you have and why are they so busy? >> >> 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: Travis Krampy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2008 3:12 PM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: Re: Exchange performance >> >> Thanks! I am going to take Simon's advise and just move mailboxes into >> new >> mailstores. I am also going to utilize Exchange Ent and maximize the >> SG's >> >> As for performance, i have run the troubleshooting tool... >> >> Here is what i found (Note that this was run on the weekend and not >> during >> the weekday): >> >> Performance issue found on logical disk containing database files >> Database disk: The maximum value for '\LogicalDisk(J:)\Avg. Disk >> sec/Read' >> should be less than 0.05 (50 ms). The measured value is 0.054 (54 ms). >> >> Maximum 'MSExchangeDSAccess Domain >> Controllers(Domaincontroller.domain.com)\LDAP Read Time' is beyond the >> warning threshold of 100 ms. The measured value is 258 ms. The rate of >> reads >> >> to this domain controller is 1 calls per second, indicating the active >> directory server is used infrequently. Rates below 0.5 are considered >> low. >> >> Maximum 'MSExchangeDSAccess Domain >> Controllers(Domaincontroller.domain.com)\LDAP Search Time' is beyond the >> warning threshold of 100 ms. The measured value is 219 ms. The rate of >> searches to this domain controller is 1 calls per second, indicating the >> active directory server is used infrequently. Rates below 0.5 are >> considered >> >> low. >> >> Active RPC User Activity >> Since the RPC operations per second per user is greater than 0.15, the >> users >> >> are considered as 'moderately active'. The measured RPC operations per >> second/per user rate is 0.217. >> >> The tool also gave me a recommendation to: >> >> If the users accessing the Exchange server are highly active, and you are >> unable to reduce the load on your server, and your server is exhibiting >> bottlenecks, you should consider moving some users to another server. >> >> Looks like I have some more digging... >> >> I never had to deal with RPC latiency issues, can anyone point me to a >> direction to start looking? Obviously i need to take care of the disk >> bottleneck, but could the disk bottleneck be an indication that the SAN >> isnt >> >> configured properly for Exchange? >> >> I dont deal much with SANs, only direct attached storage for exchange... >> >> Thanks >> >> Travis >> >> "Troy Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> I agree with Simon (as will most of the other Exch admins here) that if >> you >> can just move the mailboxes to a different mailstore, its not worth doing >> the offline defrag. You get essentially the same result when you are >> able >> to delete the original mailstore. >> >> Your speed symptoms sound strange, is it with everyone, or just select >> users? I would look at mailboxes to make sure you don't have users with >> tons of data and a million things in the inbox. If you can help it, keep >> mailbox sizes under 2gb and less than 5000 items in a single folder (IE >> move >> >> extra items to a subfolder). If you allow excess (as we do) just let >> users >> know its their call and they need to know performance will suffer. Also, >> how are your users connecting? Is everyone local MAPI? If you have >> humongous mailboxes, cached mode should help improve performance a bit. >> >> Hope that helps >> >> Troy >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Simon Butler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:28 AM >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: Exchange performance >> >> Have you run the Exchange Troubleshooting tool on the server? >> >> How do you know you will gain 50% of the space on an offline defrag? >> You are prepared for the downtime? 100gb stores, that is between 4 days >> and >> 24 hours total downtime (the rough rule of thumb is 1 - 4gb per hour for >> an >> offline defrag). >> >> As you are running Enterprise edition and have not maximised out the >> number >> of storage groups, I wouldn't even be considering an offline defrag. >> Create >> some new databases and move the mailboxes, then drop the original store. >> >> I will leave it to others to post on the SAN performance issues. >> >> However, I will say that I have seen performance gains by REMOVING RAM. I >> get funny looks when I do that, but I have removed 2gb from 4gb machines >> and >> >> seen performance gains in the past. >> >> Simon. >> >> -- >> Simon Butler >> MVP: Exchange, MCSE >> Amset IT Solutions Ltd. >> >> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> w: www.amset.co.uk >> w: www.amset.info >> >> Need cheap certificates for Exchange, compatible with Windows Mobile 5.0? >> http://CertificatesForExchange.com/ for certificates from just $23.99. >> Need a domain for your certificate? http://DomainsForExchange.net/ >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Travis Krampy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: 01 November 2008 16:13 >> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> Subject: Exchange performance >> >> Hi All, >> >> I have been assigned to look at some performance issues on an exchange >> server. >> >> Exchange 2003 Ent, SP2, Windows 2003 SP2 >> 4Gb RAM, 1 dual core processor, 2-36Gb hard drives (OS) RAID1, 2-72Gb >> Hard >> drives (Pagefies, SMTP) RAID1 >> >> Databases and Tranaction logs on SAN >> 8 different Databases, 2 Storage Groups (4 databases in each storage >> group) >> 8-RAID5 LUNS (200Gb each) all on the same set of spindels, one for each >> DB, >> and 2 RAID1 LUNS for the transaction logs (200Gb each, all on the same >> spindels) >> >> The exchange server is connected to the san using Fiber Channel >> >> The performance issues that are being experienced are mostly Outlook >> issues >> Changing from Inbox to Calendar is about a 10 second pause >> sometimes clicking on a message will take about 5 seconds to display >> properly in the reading pane >> moving from folders takes a few seconds for outlook to respond >> >> I am in the process of scheduleing some defrags on the databases. Each >> database is either at or nearing the 100Gb mark. I have calculated that >> I >> can get the databases down to about 50% or less. >> >> I am not confident that doing these defrags will imporve performance. >> >> Given all of this information, what else can I do or look at to improve >> performance? >> >> Could my SAN be a part of the performance problem that the users are >> experiencing? >> >> How could I find out if my SAN is part of the problem? >> >> Thanks >> >> Travis >> >> ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy. Thank you. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
