+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32
Enterprise Software Thread, Exchange 2013: The devourer of RAM! in Technical; I have Exchange 2013 running in a lab environment and it seems to cope okay without any problems, if anything ...
  1. #16

    EduTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    5,071
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 934 Times in 730 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    274
    I have Exchange 2013 running in a lab environment and it seems to cope okay without any problems, if anything it's my disk speed which causes it headache! If I were to have my SSD back it would be fine! :-)

    Lab Only ofcourse! not production!

    James.

  2. #17
    Tsonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    155
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    If you are unhappy with how much it is eating, limit it, just like you can with SQL.

  3. #18

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,724
    Thank Post
    867
    Thanked 664 Times in 437 Posts
    Rep Power
    501
    @Tsonga - how do you limit the RAM then? if it can be reduced then I'm game to try it again...

  4. #19
    Tsonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    155
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatt View Post
    @Tsonga - how do you limit the RAM then? if it can be reduced then I'm game to try it again...
    The link posted earlier shows how to do it in exchange 2010, I would assume there is an equivalent for 2013.

    HOWEVER THIS IS WORST PRACTICE.

    Like others have said, Exchange is designed to eat all the RAM. Personally I would only start limiting in a lab and never in a lab environment. When you do go live, give it it's own physical box, it doesn't like sharing.

  5. #20

    Michael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    9,262
    Thank Post
    242
    Thanked 1,572 Times in 1,252 Posts
    Rep Power
    340
    An alternative is Office 365. Let Microsoft do all the hosting/managing and you just concentrate helping users. Each user gets 25GB by default and Exchange 2013 features will be available in the next few months apparently.

  6. #21

    EduTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    5,071
    Thank Post
    160
    Thanked 934 Times in 730 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    An alternative is Office 365. Let Microsoft do all the hosting/managing and you just concentrate helping users. Each user gets 25GB by default and Exchange 2013 features will be available in the next few months apparently.
    Couple of weeks for new customers ;-)

  7. #22

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,724
    Thank Post
    867
    Thanked 664 Times in 437 Posts
    Rep Power
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by Tsonga View Post
    The link posted earlier shows how to do it in exchange 2010, I would assume there is an equivalent for 2013.

    HOWEVER THIS IS WORST PRACTICE.

    Like others have said, Exchange is designed to eat all the RAM. Personally I would only start limiting in a lab and never in a lab environment. When you do go live, give it it's own physical box, it doesn't like sharing.
    Cheers - I technically have a LAB environment (my house is my lab!) so that's not much of an issue for now
    Though cannot see why its worst practice to throttle RAM when SCCM complains bitterly during install that SQL isn't throttled??

  8. #23

    Norphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Harpenden
    Posts
    2,464
    Thank Post
    55
    Thanked 337 Times in 262 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    126
    I think the problem there is that when you install SCCM and SQL on the same box as you probably would do for anything less than 10,000 clients, SQL would eat all of the available RAM and leave none for SCCM. With a dedicated SQL box, you'd be free to to allocate most or all that you can.

  9. #24

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Aigburth, Liverpool
    Posts
    156
    Thank Post
    35
    Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
    Rep Power
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by nickbro View Post
    It's how exchange works, it will attempt to load as much data as it can into RAM to avoid HDD IO calls, even with an SSD RAM is quicker
    This guy hit the nail on the head. This is the reason I run Exchange 2010 on it's own dedicated server. It does what it wants, when it wants. Runs like a dream.

  10. #25
    Duke5A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    809
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 132 Times in 115 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8
    Rep Power
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by sven View Post
    This guy hit the nail on the head. This is the reason I run Exchange 2010 on it's own dedicated server. It does what it wants, when it wants. Runs like a dream.
    Agreed. We're running 2010 with 400 mail boxes on a VM with 8GB and four virtual processors. It barely touches the processors but eats all the RAM. Runs fine and mail is the only thing that VM does.

  11. #26
    mrbios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stroud, Gloucestershire
    Posts
    2,553
    Thank Post
    363
    Thanked 264 Times in 216 Posts
    Rep Power
    101
    Exchange 2010 SP3 here, 2000 mailboxes - 24Gb ram, runs a treat

    Here's the microsoft document on memory requirements:
    Understanding Memory Configurations and Exchange Performance: Exchange 2010 Help

    So essentially if you have every single role on one server and your mailboxes, 32GB is basically a minimum. Granted that's fine in theory but in practice you never quite seem to need that much, it's clearly stated though. 10Gb for example will always cause exchange to struggle, infact i once had my exchange server running only 8Gb ram, and it crawwwwwwwwwwwwled.

  12. #27
    cpjitservices's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Hessle
    Posts
    2,504
    Thank Post
    519
    Thanked 292 Times in 268 Posts
    Rep Power
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael View Post
    An alternative is Office 365. Let Microsoft do all the hosting/managing and you just concentrate helping users. Each user gets 25GB by default and Exchange 2013 features will be available in the next few months apparently.
    Disagree, Use Zimbra... Far better!

  13. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    1,806
    Thank Post
    215
    Thanked 266 Times in 216 Posts
    Rep Power
    68
    I run 1100 mailboxes on exchange 2007 (win2k364bit) with 6GB RAM it's fine..

  14. #29
    Tsonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dorset
    Posts
    155
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 19 Times in 16 Posts
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by chazzy2501 View Post
    I run 1100 mailboxes on exchange 2007 (win2k364bit) with 6GB RAM it's fine..
    I honestly think exchange 2010 and 2013 have gotten greedy. One example is duplicate emails, If I send out 1 email to 1000 staff in exchange 2007 it keeps one copy, however on 2010 and 2013 it keeps 1000 copies (one for each mailbox). Nightmare.

  15. #30

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,206
    Thank Post
    876
    Thanked 2,730 Times in 2,309 Posts
    Blog Entries
    11
    Rep Power
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Tsonga View Post
    I honestly think exchange 2010 and 2013 have gotten greedy. One example is duplicate emails, If I send out 1 email to 1000 staff in exchange 2007 it keeps one copy, however on 2010 and 2013 it keeps 1000 copies (one for each mailbox). Nightmare.
    They did this to lower the IOPs requirement for storage as slower storage is cheaper they thought that with lower IOPs you'd get more for less even without singal instance storage. The RAM usage has got mental though, 2003 used 2-4GB and handled stacks of users fine, and quickly. 2010 eats 8GB just for a starter and runs slower.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 22nd October 2011, 09:34 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11th December 2010, 07:44 PM
  3. How do i change the name of a calendar in exchange?
    By mbird in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 24th March 2010, 08:26 PM
  4. Auditing the amount of RAM
    By mac_shinobi in forum Scripts
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 31st January 2008, 04:42 PM
  5. Exchange 2003 - the mystery of the hidden email!
    By gazankers in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 19th December 2006, 10:16 AM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •