Wow. I thought my name was bad :) Everyone thinks it is A-U-drey.
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 5:21 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
If you were referring to me, I'll show you my
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, at 1:39pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory
> is right.
I'll second that. There seem to be a large number of really sh*tty
IDE/ATA "RAID controllers" on the m
TMI
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrea Coppini
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 05:21
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
If you were referring to me, I'll show you my willy...
Regards
_MR._ Andrea Co
Lol!
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 04 October 2002 11:21
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
If you were referring to me, I'll show you my willy...
Regards
_MR._ Andrea Coppini
-Original Message-
From: Jer
If you were referring to me, I'll show you my willy...
Regards
_MR._ Andrea Coppini
-Original Message-
From: Jeremy I. Shannon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 October 2002 7:39 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
Maybe you should look into gett
hange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
Andrea,
I do believe though he said that...
'I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1
> volume. RAID1 broke. Server crashed with a blue screen. ' IE he had it
> on
Raid 1 and it still failed (don't know
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, at 1:39pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory
> is right.
I'll second that. There seem to be a large number of really sh*tty
IDE/ATA "RAID controllers" on the market these days. We had one customer
who (again
: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:16 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 October 2002 15:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
>
>
>
Maybe you should look into getting a better RAID controller. Her theory is right.
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 12:04 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
Andrea,
Please let me disagree
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 October 2002 15:23
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
>
>
> If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no
> big benefit of putting pa
. So screw it. If it is going to crash anyway I am not going to
spend extra money on it.
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 10:50 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
Picture this:
Your single
BIOS or it was the ID0 drive in the mirror?
Cheers
Paul
Standards are like toothbrushes,
everyone wants one but not yours
-Original Message-
From: Andrea Coppini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 October 2002 15:50
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
Picture
Eeeeuh, maybe because they had to 'exchange' a disk.
Michel
> -Original Message-
> From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 5:52 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
>
>
> What
d the RAID.
Pat yourself on the back for 0% downtime.
-Original Message-
From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 03 October 2002 4:23 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
If it happened once it will probably happen again. I see no big benefit
of pu
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2002 9:38 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
So because you once had a problem with RAID that caused it to stop
working must mean that it's always unreliable for everyone else every
time?
Robert Moir
IT Systems Engineer
Luton Sixth
ge-
> From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 03 October 2002 13:53
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
>
>
> Do you need me to explain it all in small details?
>
> I had an Exchange server. Page file was on a separate RAID1
>
PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
What does that have to do with Exchange?
Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
Technical Consultant
hp Services
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mai
t: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 9:04 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
Well once I had a broken RAID1 on the page file volume. RAID did not
save me. The server blue-screened. The RAID1 was physical. How about
that for reliability?
-Original Message-
From: Dennis De
Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
Why? Placing the pagefile on a separate drive sacrifices reliability for performance.
This is not normally a choice I would make on a production server.
Dennis Depp
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of
, September 30, 2002 12:58 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive. Check if you can
get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere inside the server.
-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto
to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 9:58 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
I would still try to find a way to put page file on a separate drive.
Check if you can get a single IDE or SCSI drive and stick it somewhere
inside t
Discussions
Subject: RE: New Exchange Server
What's vitally important is to keep the logs on a separate physical
volume from the databases. For 150 users, I agree that combining the OS
and logs onto the same physical volume (I recommend separate partitions,
though) shouldn't present s
owley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I
Tech Consultant
hp Services
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Martin
Blackstone
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:31 AM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: Ne
The ideal config is as follows
2 Drives, RAID1, OS
2 Drives, RAID1, Logs
3 or more drives, RAID5 (or 1+0 if you have enough drives), Stores
Not everyone has the luxury of so many drives. I have 2 drives in RAID1 for
OS and Logs, and 4 in a RAID5 for the Store.
-Original Message-
From: Vi
Hi Laercio
Try weighting the costs of the two IMS so that the secondary one is never
used unless the first one is unavailable.
-Original Message-
From: Laercio_SantosJr@Intervale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 22 August 2001 03:02
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: New Exchange Ser
Step A they need to have matching Service packs.. Ok I will read the
rest now.
Exchange in multi server world uses one server as the main server to do
the sending and receiving.
Are you trying to setup more then SMTP gateway? Is that what you are
trying to do?
Kevinm WLKMMAS*TM, QWSZC, VRY+Y,
Is the rule on a Public Folder or mailbox? If on a mailbox is the template
stored locally on a C drive? If stored locally that is likely your problem
since I have seen many instances where templates stored locally will cause a
rule to not fire. My resolution was to create a PF and put the templ
27 matches
Mail list logo
