Re: Exchange 2003 Design
From: Al Mulnick (amulnick_No_SPAM_at_ncDOTrr.com)
Date: 07/27/04
- Next message: Jeff Pratt: "Setting up Exchange 2003 without Active Directory"
- Previous message: Brian Desmond [MVP]: "Re: Exchange 2003 Design"
- In reply to: Brian Desmond [MVP]: "Re: Exchange 2003 Design"
- Next in thread: balh_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Exchange 2003 Design"
- Reply: balh_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Exchange 2003 Design"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:09:13 -0400
2000 users? Is that all ;) ?
As Brian mentions, cluster is a good thing to look at.
Keep in mind that performance for Exchange is less about processor speed and
more about the underlying components. Think front-side bus speeds, disk
subsystem speeds, and memory speeds. Also, be mindful of the Active
Directory and how it's deployed and how well it can support the Exchange
implementation you're after. The usual culprits are also a part of the
equation: memory, network, usage patterns, etc. so don't forget about those.
I've deployed many servers to date over that density and some at that
density. Much of the user base would fall into the mid-range MAPI user
(medium by some definition, but roughly .5 IOPS were expected on average).
The users didn't tend to send large binary blobs across the internet (100KB
messages were more the mean) and Anti-virus was a requirement (note: it can
be a big hit on performance).
Knowing your user patterns is increasingly important as you climb over half
that density per server.
If you decide to cluster, and it sounds like maybe you should consider it if
using MAPI clients, then watch for the failover times, and sizing
constraints. You'd be doubling the application requirements on a single
node in the case of a failover, so maintain the thresholds, you'd want to
run less then 40% overhead per node giving you room to run to 80% normalcy
in the case of a failover. That's a lot to think about before you've really
nailed down your requirements, but that's off the top of my head.
After you get more requirements defined, ping back with any questions and
we'll try to be helpful.
Al
"Brian Desmond [MVP]" <desmondb@payton.cps.k12.il.us> wrote in message
news:OmpKL02cEHA.1000@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You can easily throw 2000 users on one 2003 server If uptime is a serious
> concern, buy two servers, a scsi pod, and cluster them. How big are the
> mailboxes expected to be, how active are the users? I'd expect a 4 Way box
> with 4 - 8GB of RAM would do the trick.
>
> --
> --
> Brian Desmond
> Windows Server MVP
> desmondb@payton.cps.k12.il.us
>
> http://www.briandesmond.com
>
>
> "RW" <rwilker@pinnaclemi.net> wrote in message
> news:b314246f.0407260737.1c57ac71@posting.google.com...
> > I am designing a new Exchange environment and I am looking for
> > comments/recommendations for hardware and sofware solutions that you
> > may have had experience with. Here is a short list of basic
> > requirements:
> >
> > - Will have excellent performance and support upwards of 2000 users
> > - Highly Available with Minimal Downtime
> > - Average per user mailbox size
> > - Server / Exchange 2003
> >
> > Any input will be greatly appreciated!
> >
> > Thanks - Rob
>
>
- Next message: Jeff Pratt: "Setting up Exchange 2003 without Active Directory"
- Previous message: Brian Desmond [MVP]: "Re: Exchange 2003 Design"
- In reply to: Brian Desmond [MVP]: "Re: Exchange 2003 Design"
- Next in thread: balh_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Exchange 2003 Design"
- Reply: balh_at_hotmail.com: "Re: Exchange 2003 Design"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
