RE: Dual or Quad for 4000 users

  • From: "Evan Mann" <emann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 07:45:53 -0500

I'd agree it's probably a better idea to split that many users across
more then 1 server, just so all the eggs aren't in one basket.  To
provide a little more input on my setup for reference.

I have about 250 users directly MAPI connected.  Most of the rest of
them use RPC over HTTP.  I probably have an average of 600-700 users
connected at any given time during peak times, with a large percentage
MAPI or RPC over HTTP and a smaller chunk OWA.  There is really no
POP3/IMAP4.
 
I have multiple RAID systems, the onboard which is split backplane dual
channel, RAID1 for the OS/Exchange, and RAID5 for Logs.  Then there is
another dual channel card that runs into a Dell PowerVault 220S which is
a SCSI JBOD with 2 interfaces.  That's split into two separate RAID5's.
I have 1 Storage Group per array.  All disks are 10K RPM.

I havn't noticed any I/O bottlenecks to this point.  Most of my users
have 75meg limits, and are always pushing those limits.  All in a single
store around 105gigs in total size (with no whitespace).  Then the rest
of my 275gigs of stores (or so) is spread across 5 other stores.
 
I don't have any statistics on how much mail goes in/out of my stores,
but my front end see's at least 80k e-mails in/out, so I'm fairly
certain the stores see much more then that figure.

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Ion Gott [mailto:Ion.Gott@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:41 PM
        To: [ExchangeList]
        Subject: [exchangelist] RE: Dual or Quad for 4000 users
        
        
        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]
        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
------------------------------------------------------ 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
        ------------------------------------------------------
        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
        ------------------------------------------------------
        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: