Re: Why 4 Procs

  • From: "A. M. Salim" <msalim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "[ExchangeList]" <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:33:10 -0500 (EST)


> 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.


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

Other related posts: