>>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> We have 9000+ mailboxes on 2 backend servers, fronted by 2 FE
>>>> >>>>>>> servers.
>>>> >>>>>>> Storage is EMC Celerra, iSCSI (soon to be fiberchannel).
>>
hen 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 j
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.
&g
nment, 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
> >>>>>>>&g
can get burned.
Greg
-Original Message-
From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 10:06 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
In this case, I disagree.
This seems to be a pattern of behavior
gic 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
>>>>>>>> dire
(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 dis
e 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
>
ite, by the way, which I found when I had to look up “seagull
> management”
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 02, 2010 12:54 PM
>
> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re:
:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 12:54 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
Honestly, I can probably only speculate. I believe this manager has
previous technical experience, and now he manages a non-technical
or 3 days justifing the good solution you already have?
>
> --
> *From:* Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 02, 2010 11:14 AM
>
> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of
Sounds to me like a "seagull manager".
From: David W. McSpadden [mailto:dav...@imcu.com]
Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 10:40 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
Any ideas on where the idiot wanted to go with this i
:14 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
Unfortunately, my assumptions were correct. My VP took the evidence that
disproved the comments and showed it to our CIO. He was convinced we knew
what we were doing and said the other manager
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 fr
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.
>>>>
gt; 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.
>>>>
>
warrant any wasted
>>> hardware expenses.
>>>
>>> - Sean
>>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:54 PM, 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
t;> - Sean
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:54 PM, 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
> > From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:52 PM
> > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> > Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
> >
> >
> >
> > No worries Greg. I didn't c
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
>>
nough to
> make that clear. My apologies.. Nice setup though.
>
>
>
> From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:41 PM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
>
>
>
Glad I could help. Posting my horror and need of help in another post..
From: Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 12:08 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
Yeah, that is a common
Yeah, that is a common scenario in our environment. I have a feeling, with
the article Greg just dug up for me, this little situation will silently be
swept under the rug.
- Sean
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Harry Singh wrote:
> I'm no Exchange expert but breaking down your scenario, as wri
ferring to MS Mail…
>
>
>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa997557(EXCHG.65).aspx
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sean Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:52 PM
>
> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> *Subject:* Re: Exch
I'm no Exchange expert but breaking down your scenario, as written, it
would appear you guys have nothing to either worry about or even
defend. The most you can do is provide enough empirical statistical
data, which you already have, and explain your position. The decision
makers will decide how to
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 10:52 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
No worries Greg. I didn't catch the sarcasm but no harm done.
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:17 PM, wrote:
I was being completely sarcastic…
:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:41 PM
> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Exchange 2003 - Recommended # of Mailboxes per Server
>
>
>
> If/when I need additional hardware to boost performance, I'll have
> no problem getting it. This
Still waiting for it. He responded to my request by saying "I thought
I had it book marked but I must have come across it at home. I'll look
for it tonight."
We'll see!
On Mar 31, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
Just ask one question:
"Where's the documentation for that statement? N
Just ask one question:
"Where's the documentation for that statement? Name the KB article,
white paper or whatever that says that, and let us analyze it."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Kurt
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 14:42, Sean Martin wrote:
> My boss just gave me some distur
ended # of Mailboxes per Server
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
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-Exc
...@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
oad.
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialExchange.com
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 gav
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 d
34 matches
Mail list logo
