-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Regarding #2, your argument is valid for Exchange 5.5, but
with Exchange 2000 and multiple databases your time to
recovery shouldn't be a function of the number of mailboxes
on the server but the number in a database.
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stewart Jump
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.
Its not so much how many users
So if time-to-recovery of a 1000-person
server is 60% of time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server,
scary math equation snipped
Isn't doing something in 60% of the time *twice* equal to 120% or 20% more
total downtime?
_
about monitoring
the health of your hardware.
Serdar Soysal
-Original Message-
From: Reiss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.
This logic seems faulty to me in two
So if time-to-recovery of a 1000-person
server is 60% of time-to-recovery of a 2000-person server,
scary math equation snipped
Isn't doing something in 60% of the time *twice* equal to 120%
or 20% more total downtime?
I hate to say it, but the answer to that was in the scary
math
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Reiss, Peter
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.
This logic seems faulty to me in two ways:
1) How many users you are willing to have without e-mail when it fails
*is* a valid
hardware and are religious about monitoring
the health of your hardware.
Serdar Soysal
-Original Message-
From: Reiss, Peter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2002 3:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.
This logic seems
It could be argued that most employees would be MORE
productive if without e-mail for a little while.
I agree. Sadly, it might have a un-productive impact on my bonus.
Peter
_
List posting FAQ:
12:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.
This logic seems faulty to me in two ways:
1) How many users you are willing to have without e-mail when it fails
*is* a valid question. Even if the total person-minutes of downtimes
stays constant (which I don't
Its not so much how many users a box can support but how many users you are
willing to have without email when it fails and how long you are wiling to
sit there while restoring the server. 3000 users @2MB is only 60GB. Assuming
you have an LTO tape drive (100GB native + compression at ?:1) then
from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stewart Jump
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 3:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.
Its not so much how many users a box can
Excellent argument Ed!
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 9:11 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.
The argument that It's...how many users you are willing to have without
e-mail
Hello Pete,
Exchange 2000 can potentially handle more users per server due to EX2K having
the ability to have multiple mbx stores. We at UNO are going to answer the
same question. As you know it is difficult to predict how students will use
Exchange 2000. Some of the members of the [EMAIL
: Exchange 2,000 scalability question.
Hello Pete,
Exchange 2000 can potentially handle more users per server due to EX2K
having the ability to have multiple mbx stores. We at UNO are going to
answer the same question. As you know it is difficult to predict how
students will use Exchange 2000. Some
14 matches
Mail list logo
