We have 9000+ mailboxes on 2 backend servers, fronted by 2 FE servers. Storage is EMC Celerra, iSCSI (soon to be fiberchannel). No performance problems whatsoever!
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Sean Martin <seanmarti...@gmail.com> wrote: > If/when I need additional hardware to boost performance, I'll have no > problem getting it. This statement came from a manager of a non-technical > department who believes he can do a better job than all of our existing > Analysts. > > I'm sure it sounds like I'm taking it a bit personally, and I may be, but > this is just a case where I know our current environment is over-sized, and > I've got the performance metrics to prove it. > > This is an Exchange 2003 Enterprise SP2 environment, 2003 AD. > > Each server is a PowerEdge M710, 6GB RAM (limited via boot.ini due to > 32-bit), 4 local 15k sas drives (RAID 1 OS, RAID 1 page file/temp > directories). QLogic 2572 HBAs connected to Brocade 5300 Fiber switches > (4gbps) to an EMC CX700. Logs are stored on a 4 disk (15k FC) RAID 10, > Stores are on a 14 disk (15k FC) RAID 10, SMTP, message tracking, mta > directories are on a RAID 1 (15k FC). > > A third front-end server provides ActiveSync. > > Disk I/O has always been our biggest battle and based on our user I/O, the > above configuration has yielded very good results. Although we do have about > 2000 mailboxes, only 1200-1300 of those are ever accessed concurrently, so > with that we're barey above this "500 mailbox" limitation he came up with. > > I guess a lot of this stems from this particular manager having a > reputation of trying make others look bad in these high-profile meetings. My > boss(es) are taking this more personally than I am. > > Anyway, thanks for the information thus far. I'm confident that if it comes > down to it, I can prove our environment does not warrant any wasted hardware > expenses. > > - Sean > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:54 PM, <greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net> wrote: > >> Hmm.. sounds like he is going to give you some money to boost up the >> number of servers you need….Say thank you for your contribution and if and >> when we run into performance issues we will use this money to purchase >> additional servers.. >> >> >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> *From:* Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 31, 2010 5:42 PM >> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server >> >> >> >> My boss just gave me some disturbing news. Another manager mentioned in a >> meeting, full of all of our Executives, that Microsoft recommends only 500 >> users per Exchange server. >> >> >> >> Now, my boss and VP know this is BS, but now I'm tasked with providing >> literature that disproves that. The problem is, I don't know of any >> literature that will fit the bill because I've never seen any >> "recommendations" on the number of user/mailboxes to host per server. >> >> >> >> I'm well aware it depends on hardware, storage, mailbox limits, user IO, >> etc. I've got all of the performance metrics in the world to prove there are >> no problems at the Exchange server level, and we're hosting approximately >> 2000 mailboxes split across two mailbox servers. >> >> >> >> Do any of you know of any official documentation that helps explain this >> scenario? I'm waiting on this manager to provide me a copy of the >> documentation he supposedly read that dictates this 500 user limit. >> >> >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> >> >> - Sean >> > > -- smsadm
