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
guys to
make their decision and skip WNLB altogether:)
Paul
From: sms adm [sms...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:35 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 design
How reliable was your WNLB?
We're planning to do the same ... start
: Friday, June 17, 2011 1:21 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Cc: neil.hob...@microsoft.com
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design
I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use
hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you
for the helpful links
need they're worth the look:)
Paul
From: Ryan Finnesey [ryan.finne...@harrierinvestments.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 2:39 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design
No we are not stuck on F5 at all, we are looking at them first
From: sms adm [sms...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 4:35 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Exchange 2010 design
How reliable was your WNLB?
We're planning to do the same ... start with WNLB and move to HW NLB when our
network guys decide what they will buy and when
world are these white papers, if I
followed a similar route would I end up with a practical solution?
Thanks again,
Laurence
_
From: Neil Hobson [mailto:neil.hob...@microsoft.com]
Sent: 13 June 2011 15:30
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design
In addition
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design
Thanks for the replies, they set me off on a lot of reading. Unfortunatly I've
been told that a hardware load balancer is out of the question at the moment,
but I did find this link for a highly available 500
mailbox design (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads
will
have to be on separate servers.
DAMIEN SOLODOW
Systems Engineer
317.447.6033 (office)
317.447.6014 (fax)
HARRISON COLLEGE
From: Laurence Bryant [mailto:l...@cem.dur.ac.uk]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:55 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design
Thanks
: RE: Exchange 2010 design
Thanks for the replies, they set me off on a lot of reading.
Unfortunatly I've been told that a hardware load balancer is out of the
question at the moment, but I did find this link for a highly available
500 mailbox design
(http
From: Damien Solodow [mailto:damien.solo...@harrison.edu]
Sent: 17 June 2011 17:24
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design
That looks like a good paper, and the solution looks
Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design
In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the
load balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic :
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx
FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Cc: neil.hob...@microsoft.com
Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 design
I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use hardware
from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for the helpful
links.
Cheers
Ryan
From: Neil Hobson
*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Cc:* neil.hob...@microsoft.com
*Subject:* RE: Exchange 2010 design
** **
I need to do something very similar I need to decide if we want to use
hardware from F5 or use NLB for an Exchange 2010 deployment. Thank you for
the helpful links
Laurence,
If you're going to have all three roles, CAS/HT/MB, on each server, you
need a hardware load balancer. You can get a decent one for under $2k.
If you go with the CAS/HT role on one server and the MB role on the
other, you won't have any fault tolerance other than any level of RAID
In addition to what Phil said in his reply, for a good overview of the load
balancing options I'd recommend reading this topic :
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff625247.aspx
FYI, if you go down the hardware load balancer route, here's the page that
lists the hardware load balancers
21 matches
Mail list logo
