Pretty sure it's that the various sizing calculators from Microsoft always base
figures on physical/actual number of cores. When you introduce HT, you're not
really giving yourself double the number of CPUs in raw performance, so any
planning based on the calculators goes out the window.
We
performance.
From: Steve Goodman [mailto:st...@stevieg.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 6:20 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
I agree with Richard - the capacity planning challenge is that the number of
cores from the calculator doesn't differentiate between
Admin Issues
*Subject:* RE: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
** **
I agree with Richard – the “capacity planning challenge” is that the
number of cores from the calculator doesn’t differentiate between HT cores
and normal cores. So your design is going to be for actual cores
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
Martin [mailto:seanmarti...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2012 11:18 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
Thanks for the feedback. We'resupporting just over 2000 mailboxes in this
environment so we felt
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.
I meant ~2Tb data in there (first line).
Blackberry
From: Ramatowski, Paul M.
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2012 09:14 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 Design Questions
We have 6500 mbx, ~2G worth in them, 6 servers in two sites
