Thanks for the feedback. We'resupporting just over 2000 mailboxes in this environment so we felt memory configurations were sufficient.
- Sean On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM, <pramatow...@mediageneral.com> wrote: > We have 6500 mbx, ~2G worth in them, 6 servers in two sites, 3 active DB's > on each server, each DB had a copy local and a copy in the cross-site (hope > that makes sense). Avg mbx 250mb, range from a couple mb to 10G. The > smaller mbx's are throwaways, the larger are generic shared mbx's. > Virtually all are running in cached mode, 2K3, 2K7 with a smattering of > 2K10 clients. Probably 4500 clients are at the far end of dual or quad T1's > with a cable modem B/U, QOS on all the links so mail gets at most 40-50%. > Intra site is 10G, intra site is 250-300Mb (I think) > > That's a bit of background, the servers are Dell 510's , dual 6 core procs > hyperthreaded so 24 "cores" each server. (2.66 Xeon fwiw) kicker? Each DB > and logs for each DB are on a 7500 rpm drive (circular logging) eek. > > Have never had an issue with cpu in that config. Saw things that > recommended turning off hyperthreading, was ready to do so if necessary but > looking at day to day ops, maintenance, us running scripts, doing junk on a > server, it just never was necessary. > > Now the only thing I'd wonder is your memory- we're at 48G in each server, > not sure if 24 would work for us. > > Ymmv. > > Blackberry > > *From*: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com] > *Sent*: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 07:32 PM > *To*: MS-Exchange Admin Issues <exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com> > *Subject*: Exchange 2010 Design Questions > > Hello all, > > I'm a little more than a year removed from any real Exchange management > but I am loosely involved with my company's re-vitalized effort to migrate > from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. We recently had an Exchange PFE onsite > to assist with a high-level design for our environment. One of the > recommendations kind of threw me for a loop and I wanted to get some > feedback from those of you running Exchange 2010. > > Disable Hyper-threading - > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd346699.aspx: The article > states: > > "*Hyperthreading causes capacity planning and monitoring challenges, and > as a result, the expected gain in CPU overhead is likely not justified. > Hyperthreading should be disabled by default for production Exchange > servers and only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to > increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained.*" > > What capacity planning and monitoring challenges are introduced? We've > been running hyper-threaded multi-core servers for many, many years and I > can't think of any challenges that were introduced. Is there a specific > scenario I'm not thinking about that is specific to Exchange capacity > planning or monitoring? > FWIW, we have 6 physical servers which will be evenly distributed between > two active sites based on the latest design. Servers are Dell PowerEdge > M610 blade servers with dual 6-core procs, 24GB memory, QLogic 8GB HBAs* > connecting to Compellent Storage. > > *3 servers at one site will actually leverage infiniband (4x40GB) > connectivity to Xsigo directors which will distribute vHBAs and vNICs. > > Any insight would be appreciated. > > - Sean > > > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist > --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe exchangelist
