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] 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] 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 ------------------------------------------------------ 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