AD sites and services configured correctly? -sc
> -----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 ~ > > > > ~ 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 ~
