I have to admit, I shuddered a little bit when I read you're using the Celerra. We have a couple of NS502G as iSCSI gateways to our Clariions. I've never really liked them, but I guess my complaints have more to do with the cludgy interface than anything else. We only use them to serve up iSCSI luns to a few Microsoft Virtual Server hosts for test/dev and to provide non-critical CIFS.
Good to hear you're seeing positive results. Thanks for sharing. - Sean On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:08 AM, sms adm <sms...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >
