Great input, Al! If someday I need to make an implementation with that size, this post will be a great reference! Congrats! Tiago -----Mensagem original----- De: Mulnick, Al [mailto:Al.Mulnick@xxxxxxxxxx] Enviada: sex 1/28/2005 13:47 Para: [ExchangeList] Cc: Assunto: [exchangelist] Re: Why 4 Procs http://www.MSExchange.org/ Mike, you bring highlight a great point. For a small implementation, a single proc, if you can find them in a server chassis is likely fine for just Exchange deployments. 100 users would likely be fine on a laptop if not for the power-save functions :) Each deployment will differ greatly. For example, some will have 100 users per server and of that, the 80-10-10 rule will apply for usage as well as the 75/25 concept. 10% of the users will reply, "email? I have email? I didn't know" 10% will be taking 80% of the resource utilization and the other 80% of the user density will use the server on a normal basis similar to the benchmark specs. After that, you'll have to consider that not everybody uses a server at the same instant, so you might expect that 75% of the users would be active (consuming resources) at a given time while 25% are making the company money in other ways. 75% is likely high, but I like to include the incoming traffic that occurs when they do nothing. On a 100 user machine, a single proc would be fine most likely. A PDA might be enough if not for the storage requirements. On a 1000 user machine you're odds of seeing it more heavily utilized with larger db's is higher. On a 10000 user machine, your odds are even greater. There's another angle to consider. Are all your users MAPI users? Or are some of them using internet protocols? If mixed, your resource requirements change yet again. It all needs to be considered. So you highlight a great point about the sizing of Exchange servers: it depends. (sounds like something a consultant might say, doesn't it?) I believe the original poster mentioned 7000 users across 2-4 machines (or was it 5000 users?). That would be a density of about 3500 - 1750 per machine depending on the final design decision. At 3500 user density I can tell that in most cases you won't want a dual-proc machine. It might work if you have a light or highly geographically dispersed user population consuming the services and no other apps that suck the life out of the procs (like AV solutions tend to do). If you go 1750 per server, you're much closer to border line. You may want to deploy with a 2 proc solution and if that doesn't work, upgrade to 4 way machines if the needs show you require it. Keep in mind what happens if you take Exchange to a sustained proc over 75%. It doesn't behave as well as you'd like, and any hiccup will result in even longer recovery times. Is that important? I think so, because what's the point of having email if you can't use it for days at a time? It needs to be as reliable as the door systems else it may as well go away. DR/BC requirements play a part in the decision process, since you may at some point want to use RSG's to put mail back for some bozo that lost it and has to have it. On a 100 user system, you can likely tell them they'll be without mail for a little while while you do the restore and the processor takes their resources. Maybe during the lunch hour? On a 3500 user system, you have much more utilization around the clock in most cases. Al -----Original Message----- From: A. M. Salim [mailto:msalim@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:33 AM To: [ExchangeList] Subject: [exchangelist] Re: Why 4 Procs http://www.MSExchange.org/ Hi, > Bottom line: you get better performance when scaling Exchange with > four processor machines. Fact. You may get acceptable performance on > a two-way machine. If you're really a small shop and can find a > single processor server class machine (I'm sure they're out there, but > I don't see them as > frequently) then you may do just fine with that. In fact, I run > Exchange on a single processor because it's a test lab in a VS > environment. VS 2005 only supports 1 processor for VM. Not a choice > at this point no matter how much hardware is presented. In an earlier email I asked why even 2-proc let alone 4-proc and suggested that perhaps there may be a tendency to over-spec as a CYA measure. Let me give you some specifics. Of the Exchange servers we manage, two are single CPU servers running P4/2.4 GHz and 512MB of RAM. Each of these two servers has about 100 users on it, moderate traffic and mailbox sizes (limited to 100MB or less in most cases). The servers perform just fine. I routinely monitor the following performance specs: CPU load, memory percent use, response speed, complaints of slowness. Results: CPU load: hardly a blip (generally under 5% or 10% load at any time even at peak time of day. Memory: well below 512MB usage. generally around 200MB or less. Bandwisdth/Network traffic: low usage. Well below 5% ustilization. Response speed: zero speed complaints in last 12 months (compared to other mailservers we have particularly a Windows based iMail server). Hence my comment about over-spec'd servers. From the emails on this topic, the consensus seems to be that a minimum 2-proc server is necessary for an Exchange installation, and I just don't see that based on the data I have. Best regards Mike ------------------------------------------------------ List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp Exchange FAQ: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=FAQ ------------------------------------------------------ Other Internet Software Marketing Sites: World of Windows Networking: http://www.windowsnetworking.com Leading Network Software Directory: http://www.serverfiles.com No.1 ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org Windows Security Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/ Network Security Library: http://www.secinf.net/ Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions: http://www.ntfaxfaq.com ------------------------------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to this MSEXchange.org Discussion List as: al.mulnick@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe visit http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist Report abuse to listadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------ List Archives: http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist Exchange Newsletters: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/newsletter.asp Exchange FAQ: http://www.msexchange.org/pages/larticle.asp?type=FAQ ------------------------------------------------------ Other Internet Software Marketing Sites: World of Windows Networking: http://www.windowsnetworking.com Leading Network Software Directory: http://www.serverfiles.com No.1 ISA Server Resource Site: http://www.isaserver.org Windows Security Resource Site: http://www.windowsecurity.com/ Network Security Library: http://www.secinf.net/ Windows 2000/NT Fax Solutions: http://www.ntfaxfaq.com ------------------------------------------------------ You are currently subscribed to this MSEXchange.org Discussion List as: tiago@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe visit http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist Report abuse to listadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx