Re: e3k design q
- From: "Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:06:02 -0400
The only downside to 80 GB stores is the amount of time it takes to restore
them, maintain them, etc. Recovery is the biggest factor when planning when
it comes to sizing. Otherwise, it should be fine.
OWA is much easier to deploy on a FE server and being able to route your
mail via a FE server has some advantages in terms of what the client sees.
Especially if things backup.
Hopefully that helps.
al
"George" <George@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:963D3EA6-AE82-43EB-BC71-471478B396C0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Hi,
>
> I just joined a company that is running E3k SP1 on a single CPU box with
> Xeon 2.8Ghz processor with 2Gb of RAM. Trend Micro Scan Mail is also
> installed on the box as well as iHateSpam. TrendMicro is reporting between
> 45000 and 85000 messages scanned per day. This is on the backend server.
> The front end one is a slower machines which is currently setup to send
> all
> outbound mail and handle few OWA users...
>
> I'd like to replace both machines, but am unsure of the spec and
> configuration of the new machines. I'd like to have a cluster to increase
> availability, but am not sure whether I need the front-end - we haven't
> got
> many OWA users and more powerful machine should be able to handle the
> outbound mail. We also have NetApp IP SAN so the new cluster will have its
> data on it. The exchange store is split up in two storage groups with five
> stores - all about 80Gb. Both machines in the cluster will be xeon maybe
> with
> 4Gb RAM, but I would appreciate any advise from techies who have been down
> this road before.
>
> --
> George
.
- Prev by Date: Exchange 2003 FE and Exchange 2000 BE not working
- Next by Date: Re: Integrate Exchange 2003 into multiple separate domains
- Previous by thread: Exchange 2003 FE and Exchange 2000 BE not working
- Next by thread: Re: Integrate Exchange 2003 into multiple separate domains
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
