RE: OWA and IIS do not like the ampersand symbol
There is a urlscan.ini file that you edit accordingly. Very easy... -Todd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom.Gray Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 11:28 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: OWA and IIS do not like the ampersand symbol Well, in my continuing saga of upgrading from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000 I have found yet another interesting snag. Exchange 2000 Windows 2000 Server IIS 5 Outlook Web Access URLSCAN and IIS Lockdown tool applied to the OWA server (using the OWA template!) If a user has a message with the ampersand ( ) in the subject line and tries to read that message using outlook web access, the user gets the nasty FILE NOT FOUND error in their browser. Why? Because URLSCAN will reject the %26 character (which is the hex number for that symbol)! Yuck. I'm sure there is a way to configure URLSCAN to let this one by, just haven't gone to figure it out yet. I'l let you know when/if I do. Just thought y'all might want to know this. Tom Gray, Network Engineer All Kinds of Minds The Center for Development and Learning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ATT Net: (919)960- _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
errors?
Server has reported a Error. Reported status is: Queues - Error Drives - Unknown Services - OK Memory - Unknown CPU - Unknown Where does this originate from, and how do I fix it? Thanks... -Todd _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Slow performance
Are you referring to the array controller or the HGS80 controller? If it is a raid controller then, no you don't have to CHANGE it regularly - just charge it...when the time comes for a charge the system will inform you. You then initiate the charging process, and while it's charging the cache will be disabled. Also, Raid 5 on the SAN? I have seen serious performance drops using large raid 5 sets with a san. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 9:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance A consensus? Probably no. But I'd tend to agree that if the controller has a battery[1], it's OK to have it on. [1] Those need to be changed regularly.. If this is news to you, you should have the cache disabled. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 11:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance Is there a concensus on this? -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 7:12 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance I always thought that write-back cache should be always turned off, whether it has battery or not. -Original Message- From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 6:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance hrm... possibly you have write cache disabled... MS only recommends that this is enabled when the cache on the controller has a battery, but it does sound like this might be the case. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 5:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance Don't do diskkeeper against your store. The rest of your disk stats look to be OK. Maybe someone else can give you better advice about what perfmon items to look for to help track down the issue. -Original Message- From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 2:55 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance The store is on a 135gig raid 5 partition.. 64gigs is used with 70.7 gigs free.. both pub and priv are on this drive. The drives are brand new drives and the database is also new. We just migrated the users over to this server about four weeks ago. I have not run diskkeeper on it though. Ram = 1.5 gigs.. page file is 2gigs on the C drive. Wilson -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 2:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance What kind of shape is your drive in? Have you run diskkeeper on it to check for fragmentation problems, and/or could you be running short of space? How does your page file compare to your RAM? David -Original Message- From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 1:03 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance Thanks. I ran perfmon but it seems to show that the HDD is being heavily used. There is a lot of information in the calendars and quite a few people use it heavily. I'll keep poking around, this just gets so frustrating when everyone is screaming in your ear that email is down. Wilson -Original Message- From: Gonzalez, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 11:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance We have the same problem but we have narrowed it down to a network issue. Run perfmon on the interface and check the kb's. Our server was running at like 15% but the nic was running at like 80 and killing the box. -Original Message- From: Tener, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance How much Ram do you have? Also is there a ton of info in your calander that people access at the same time? -Original Message- From: Varghese, Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 2:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Slow performance Exch 2k sp2 on win2k sp2 machine (with 150 users) The machine is a Compaq DL380 hooked up to a Compaq SAN. The store drives are 5*32 gig (Raid 5) and the log and index files are on a mirrored 32 gig partition. Calendar and folder switching is very slow. Takes about 45 seconds to switch to a different folder or to access the calendar. Dismissing a calendar event can lock up outlook for several minutes. The log files and indexes are on separate drives but anything else I can do to speed this up a bit? If you can
RE: Slow performance
I believe he was referring to a SAN configuration - and yes, MS does not recommend using large raid 5 sets on a SAN. Raid 10 is the preferred method. Exchange 2k writes in small 4k blocks. Using raid 10 with 15K drives would really up the performance. It also matters how the data files are broken up in Exchange. If you email me directly I can provide some performance counters which can help pinpoint the bottle neck. [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think you may be best suited if you rebuild the SAN properly... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tom Meunier Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 10:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slow performance If so, that would be hilarious, right up there with 640k should be enough for anybody. I would hope it's just as much an urban legend. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 12:05 PM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: Slow performance Subject: RE: Slow performance Isn't there a white paper from MS that does not recommend building RAID5 with drives larger than 18GB _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: E2K: Add Mailbox without New User?
Another option would be to create a mail group and add in the required user. -Todd -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 1:35 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: E2K: Add Mailbox without New User? No. Mailboxes are now attributes of a user object. One mailbox per user. You can create a new user and mailbox, then disable the user and delegate mailbox access. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Underwood Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 1:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: E2K: Add Mailbox without New User? Hi All, Is it possible in E2K SP2 to add a new mailbox without adding a new user? If so, how? I have an existing user that I need to add a mailbox for development and testing. TIA. Best Regards, JMU Jim Underwood --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
