Re: Why 4 Procs
- From: "Mulnick, Al" <Al.Mulnick@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 08:58:04 -0500
Needs of the solution, quite simply. YMMV, but some folks can't tolerate
using expensive layer-8 devices to make up for one time hardware costs.
When you do the ROI, one is certainly more expensive in any organization
than the other.
When you use Exchange, you're using far more than SMTP/POP/IMAP like in that
earlier *nix comparison. To that end, if you use the *nix groupware
products, you'll find that they don't scale nearly as well as Exchange does
on similar hardware. That seems acceptable in that realm, but that's how it
is.
When I say needs of the solution, I'm hinting around the real question.
What is the requirements for user density per server? I even gave some
numbers (put my neck out on that one) saying that if you weren't going over
1500 medium user density (as per MMB 3 benchmarks) then 4 proc machines
might not have the benefit that justifies the expense. Or, you may be fine
with poor performance, or maybe you don't plan to use MAPI users, but rather
pop/imap or maybe you don't let users have more than 10mb of mail on average
so your other processor intensive processes are lower as well. The list
goes on.
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.
Assuming all things are equal (disk, memory, etc) you'll need to provide
more details about your requirements to help us answer why you should go
with 4 or 2 proc machines in your particular implementation. Include any
third party applications and expected performance from a consumer
perspective and don't forget to take into account their network latency
(performance is partially expressed
(client-latency+network-latency+server-latency+perception).
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: C Drawers [mailto:cdrawers@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 7:13 PM
To: [ExchangeList]
Subject: [exchangelist] Re: Why 4 Procs
http://www.MSExchange.org/
Thanks for the input Al.
Let me ask for more focussed feedback.
Ignore the disk issue. I'm not asking about that.
I'm talking about Mailbox/PF server functions on one box.
FE functions are handled separately.
By strictly comparing, 4 proc vs. 2 proc (and whatever Bus stuff might come
with that or other things that I'm not familiar with). Why should I spend 4
times as much for a 4 way box over a 2 way box?
--- "Mulnick, Al" <Al.Mulnick@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> http://www.MSExchange.org/
>
> Hmm... I was with that up until the last line about affording it and
> all.
>
> That's fine for some orgs, but by and large it's best to properly size
> the servers for the task at hand and the expected lifecycle.
>
> One question that comes to mind is what is the planned user-density
> for these servers? If less than 1500 medium-heavy, I'm not sure I'd
> be too concerned depending on the other apps. If you want to scale
> beyond, it's best to do the homework though.
>
> Some servers don't need as much processing power as others. For
> example, FE servers don't typically, although in some situations they
> can benefit from 4-way machines. Public Folder servers rarely need 4
> way but it does happen.
>
> When you read that link below, pay close attention to the thoughts on
> faster front-side bus speeds. That's there for a reason.
>
> If you do want to scale a machine, I highly suggest you pay very close
> attention to the disk layout/speeds as well as the DR/BC planning
> prior to settling on anything. Backplanes aren't equal either, but it
> would take quite a bit to get to that level of saturation.
>
> My $0.04 anyway.
>
> If you're interested, there's a troubleshooting performance doc on
> Microsoft's site.
> http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/library
>
> Al
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny [mailto:nocmonkey@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 4:25 PM
> To: [ExchangeList]
> Subject: [exchangelist] Re: Why 4 Procs
>
> http://www.MSExchange.org/
>
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:45:45 -0800 (PST), C Drawers
> <cdrawers@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > 4 Processor servers seem to always been chosen for
> mailbox servers.
> > Since a comparable equipped 2 processor server is
> often 1/4 the cost
> > and it seems the latest 2 proc box has equivilant
> ghz power as a 4
> > proc box, it sure seems like 2 proc boxes are the
> way to go.
>
> [...]
>
> Not sure if this is of any help:
>
>
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;827281
>
> > Any crazy theories or even better... concrete
> theories with data to
> > suppor the theory?
>
> Here's one: if you can afford it, the more the better! :D
>
> ...D
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
> 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: CDrawers@xxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe visit
>
http://www.webelists.com/cgi/lyris.pl?enter=exchangelist
> Report abuse to listadmin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
------------------------------------------------------
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
Other related posts:
