RE: Dual or Quad for 4000 users
- From: "Evan Mann" <emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:30:42 -0500
I've talked to a go who works at MS on the Exchange group and he says in
very large user Blackberry deployments, there is a HUGE IOPS hit on
Exchange. This was under BES 4.0, but I don't know what service pack.
May want to do some specific research into that. The BES Admin Corner
on blackberryforums.com may be worth a search.
-----Original Message-----
From: Teo De Las Heras [mailto:teoheras@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 12:25 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Dual or Quad for 4000 users
http://www.MSExchange.org/
The number I was given per user is .6 (It's my first week). I
put a plan in-place to get data that will validate this (or increase
it??). With 200 MB mailboxes I think synchronization and Blackberry
might push this number higher.
Teo
On 3/7/06, Michael B. Smith <michael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.MSExchange.org/
And what is the calculated IOPS per user?
Basing on what I know about other large deployments, I
would guess that you are probably OK assuming your disk subsystem can
meet the IOPS load.
In the general case, as I'm sure you know, Exchange is
I/O bound, not processor bound.
Are you going to have a dedicated bridgehead server plus
a couple of FE servers? Seems like that would be a good idea too in this
size of deployment.
________________________________
From: Teo De Las Heras [mailto: teoheras@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:teoheras@xxxxxxxxx> ]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:04 AM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Dual or Quad for 4000 users
http://www.MSExchange.org/
Thanks for all the responses! To be more specific,
we'll be placing between 22K - 25K users on an N + 2 cluster which
amounts to, at most, 4,000 users / server (6 active servers). We've
worked out the I/O profile of the user, but I think this has more of an
impact on disk utilization than processor utilization. As far as
storage though, we'll be using a CX700 with an appropriate number of
disks.
Maybe some of this information will be helpful:
- using user initiated archiving (no journaling)
- 200 MB / user (w/ quotas)
- About 25% of the clients will be OWA
- ABSOLUTELY NO BRICK LEVEL BACKUPS (Plug Ed Crowley -
don't have his website)
- Disk to disk backups which will then be written to
tape
The consensus is that dual core AMD processors will be
enough. I'm looking for data that will help validate this to add to our
functional design document.
Teo
On 3/6/06, Ion Gott <Ion.Gott@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://www.MSExchange.org/
I would probably build a 3 node cluster (Active, Active,
Passive) and place two thousand users on each active dual processor
system and leave a passive system for failover. That way all eggs
wouldn't be in one basket.
The real issue is I/O and how busy and how heavily used
mail is in the environment.
Are clients primarily connecting through Outlook 2003
full mapi clients or OWA?
What is the average size of the users mailboxes, will
quotas be used?
Is the server going to use local storage or a SAN?
Ion
________________________________
From: Evan Mann [mailto: emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]
Sent: Mon 3/6/2006 8:10 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Dual or Quad for 4000 users
http://www.MSExchange.org/
I'm running about 1100-1200 mailboxes on a Dual Xeon
2.8ghz with 4 gigs of ram .
Until recently, I had 400 gigs worth of stores. Right
now I'm down to about 275gigs worth. I think this server would easily
handle another 1500-2000 mailboxes based on the memory/cpu utilization
I've seen. With 3.6 or 3.8ghz processors I think 4000+ users on a dual
box would be fine.
It should be noted this server has nothing on it except
A/V and stores . I have a front-end server as an SMTP/POP3/IMAP/OWA
gateway.
-----Original Message-----
From: Teo De Las Heras [mailto:teoheras@xxxxxxxxx ]
Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 6:32 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] Dual or Quad for 4000 users
http://www.MSExchange.org/
I've come across the rule of thumb that there should be
a processor for every 1000 users. I've also looked at the MMB3 stats as
well. My question is, what's the best way to determine the number and
type of processors needed for 4000 users on Exchange 2003?
Teo
------------------------------------------------------
List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
------------------------------------------------------ Visit
TechGenix.com for more information about our other sites:
http://www.techgenix.com <http://www.techgenix.com/>
------------------------------------------------------ You are currently
subscribed to this MSExchange.org Discussion List as:
emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe visit
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist Report abuse to
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------
List Archives:
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Exchange Newsletters:
http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
------------------------------------------------------
Visit TechGenix.com for more information about our other
sites:
http://www.techgenix.com <http://www.techgenix.com/>
------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this MSExchange.org
Discussion List as: ion.gott@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe visit
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Report abuse to info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------
List Archives:
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Exchange Newsletters:
http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
------------------------------------------------------
Visit TechGenix.com for more information about our other
sites:
http://www.techgenix.com <http://www.techgenix.com/>
------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this MSExchange.org
Discussion List as: teoheras@xxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe visit
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Report abuse to info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------
List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
------------------------------------------------------ Visit
TechGenix.com for more information about our other sites:
http://www.techgenix.com <http://www.techgenix.com/>
------------------------------------------------------ You are currently
subscribed to this MSExchange.org Discussion List as: michael@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe visit
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist Report abuse to
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------
List Archives:
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Exchange Newsletters:
http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
------------------------------------------------------
Visit TechGenix.com for more information about our other
sites:
http://www.techgenix.com <http://www.techgenix.com/>
------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to this MSExchange.org
Discussion List as: teoheras@xxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe visit
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Report abuse to info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------ List
Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp
------------------------------------------------------ Visit
TechGenix.com for more information about our other sites:
http://www.techgenix.com
------------------------------------------------------ You are currently
subscribed to this MSExchange.org Discussion List as:
emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe visit
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist Report abuse to
info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
