+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17
Enterprise Software Thread, New Server for Exchange 2010 (500 users) in Technical; Just spec'ing an exchange server for our 500 staff.. All the students are on live@edu, and all the storage is ...
  1. #1

    RabbieBurns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,512
    Thank Post
    1,320
    Thanked 469 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    199

    New Server for Exchange 2010 (500 users)

    Just spec'ing an exchange server for our 500 staff.. All the students are on live@edu, and all the storage is going to be direct attached to our FC SAN.

    I had come up with this, what do you think I could change/add etc.. cheers

    Code:
    1 TPM Motherboard for PowerEdge(TM) R715
    1 AMD 8-Core Opteron 6128, 2.0GHz, 8x512K L2 Cache, 115W TDP (2CPU)
    1 PowerEdge R715/R810/R815 Rack Chassis for 6x2.5" HDDs
    1 Bezel for PowerEdge(TM) R715/R810/R815
    1 Memory Info for 2 CPU config
    1 4x Filler Blank for Memory (Dual)
    1 64GB Memory (8x8GB), 1333MHz, Dual Ranked LV RDIMMs
    1 CPU Heatsink for R815 (Dual)
    2 146GB 15K RPM,6Gbps SAS 2.5 " Hot Plug Hard Drive
    1 PERC H700 Integrated RAID Controller 512MB Cache
    2 Factory Install - Qlogic (QLE2560) 8Gbps PCI-E FC HBA - Single Port
    2 QLE2560/62, Documentation Kit
    1 DVD+/-RW ROM, SATA, Internal for Ms 2008 R2
    1 Redundant Power Supply 750W
    1 Cable for PERC H700
    2 5M, Multi-Mode, LC-LC, Fibre Cable
    2 1x Jumper Cord, C13/C14, 250V, 4M
    1 Intel(R) Ethernet X520 SFP+ DA Dual Port 10 Gigabit Server Adapter
    1 iDRAC6 Enterprise
    1 Riser for AMER
    1 No Operating System
    1 INFO ONLY- No Operating System
    1 2U sliding rail
    1 Cable Management Arm Rail
    1 C3 : R1 for PERC H200 or H700, Exactly 2 SATA/SAS/SSD Drives
    1 PER715 Electronic System Documentation and OpenManage DVD
    Service
    1 Technical Support
    1 SI,EMEA,MOD,DELL READY
    1 Main Configuration Box Label
    1 APCC Order Ready for Main Config Box Label
    1 Integration Information
    1 ProSupport: (7x24) 4-hour Onsite Service, 3Yr
    1 # Limited Warranty: Extended Year 2 - 3 (NBD)
    1 # Limited Warranty: Extended Year 2 - 3 (POW)
    1 ProSupport: 7x24 Technical Support & Assistance for IT Staff: 3Yr
    1 # Limited Warranty: Initial Year (NBD)
    1 # Limited Warranty: Initial Year (POW)
    1 3Yr ProSupport: (7x24) 4-hour Onsite Service

  2. #2
    jamesfed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    2,192
    Thank Post
    134
    Thanked 340 Times in 287 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    You could probably shave a little off by using 10k drives instead of 15k if you are using a SAN.

    One little point to note (and not that it may concern your deployment) is that Microsoft suggest that Exchange 2010 uses Local/DAS storage.

  3. #3


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    I'm choked, honestly. This is a spec for a small scale email server these days?!?....
    Half of me wants to go back to 1999, the other half is headed to the clouds.

  4. #4

    RabbieBurns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,512
    Thank Post
    1,320
    Thanked 469 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    199
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    I'm choked, honestly. This is a spec for a small scale email server these days?!?....
    Half of me wants to go back to 1999, the other half is headed to the clouds.
    My boss told me yesterday he wants 2 of the CPUs! Reason I posted here tbh was to get an idea about what would be a reasonable spec tbh that wont suffer any issues and run fine for 3 years.

    @jamesfed, can you point me in the direction where MS recommends not using SAN storage please?

  5. #5


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by RabbieBurns View Post
    My boss told me yesterday he wants 2 of the CPUs! Reason I posted here tbh was to get an idea about what would be a reasonable spec tbh that wont suffer any issues and run fine for 3 years.
    I think its totally overkill, but I'm not an MS expert and I'm sure anyone who is will tell you to buy it.

    @jamesfed, can you point me in the direction where MS recommends not using SAN storage please?
    SAN is essentially local storage.

  6. #6
    jamesfed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Reading
    Posts
    2,192
    Thank Post
    134
    Thanked 340 Times in 287 Posts
    Rep Power
    84
    Sorry pulled that one out of the whole new features of DAG where (as far as I understand) you don't need a SAN to have HA
    That’s all why HP have come about with their new Exchange server hardware where you get two blades in an enclosure with a tone of SAS connectors to hook up to D2600/D2700 arrays - and so using uberly high speed direct SAS links.

  7. #7


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    I'm not really sure about how badly/well exchange handles resources, and if the MS experts say you need it then go for it. If you absolutely need to use exchange (and you probably don't, but I'll roll with it) then get two or three lower spec servers and put them in a high availability, clustered virtual configuration. You don't need any expensive software - you can do it for free with KVM or XEN using a centos base.

  8. #8

    RabbieBurns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,512
    Thank Post
    1,320
    Thanked 469 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    199
    is there any MS experts on here who could comment? I agree with the HA, spending all that money and then having email unavailable while rebooting for updates seems daft.... Having the storage mounted on our SAN with a single server isnt going to make it highly available...Boss here wont entertain putting exchange on virtual for some reason, we already have some decent hyperv hosts clustered which store the VMs on the SAN..

  9. #9


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by RabbieBurns View Post
    is there any MS experts on here who could comment? I agree with the HA, spending all that money and then having email unavailable while rebooting for updates seems daft.... Having the storage mounted on our SAN with a single server isnt going to make it highly available...Boss here wont entertain putting exchange on virtual for some reason, we already have some decent hyperv hosts clustered which store the VMs on the SAN..
    Not just the problem with rebooting, you'll get better throughput of data with clustered servers, and save massive amounts of tech time. Sounds like you should get a new boss.

  10. #10

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,074
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 2,270 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    769
    Exchange likes stacks of memory and alright IO. The above server will be fine, storage depends on how many mailboxes and how much traffic. If its just standard medium levels of traffic then it'll probably cope with 4-8 cores easy.

    It will run with much less but the more RAM it has the faster it goes. If you are using the advanced features like the voicemail processing it will use a bunch more resources though.

    HA you can do by using DAGs as above.

    Oh and Exchange virtualises nicely for all but the voicemail stuff.
    Last edited by SYNACK; 31st August 2011 at 01:00 AM.

  11. #11


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    Exchange likes stacks of memory .
    64GB Memory (8x8GB), 1333MHz, Dual Ranked LV RDIMM
    Is this for real. I must be showing my age, but (albeit without voice) my first email server had 64MB RAM. How can 500 users possibly need this much memory for email?

  12. #12

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,074
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 2,270 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    Is this for real. I must be showing my age, but (albeit without voice) my first email server had 64MB RAM. How can 500 users possibly need this much memory for email?
    As I said above it does not need that much but if you have that much it can stuff the whole DB into RAM and have it nice and quick unlike certain other solutions. Exchange also handles lots more than email but I've run 100 user deployments on servers with 6GB and rubbish disk IO that have been responcive enough.

  13. #13


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,202
    Thank Post
    442
    Thanked 1,032 Times in 812 Posts
    Rep Power
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by SYNACK View Post
    As I said above it does not need that much but if you have that much it can stuff the whole DB into RAM and have it nice and quick unlike certain other solutions. Exchange also handles lots more than email but I've run 100 user deployments on servers with 6GB and rubbish disk IO that have been responcive enough.
    I guess that proves it's well overspec for 500 users.

    so surely the recommendation would be to buy another physical server and cluster it.

  14. #14

    SYNACK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11,074
    Thank Post
    853
    Thanked 2,676 Times in 2,270 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by CyberNerd View Post
    I guess that proves it's well overspec for 500 users.

    so surely the recommendation would be to buy another physical server and cluster it.
    That was a low usage example but yes, as a VM with three CPUs and 6GB under Hyper-V it runs fine.

    Personally I'd rather cluster two smaller servers but TBH I'd still be looking at a decent amount of RAM like that for future proofing just so that if usage increases suddenly as it does when people figure out its good. I would rather overspec than underspec.

  15. #15

    RabbieBurns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    5,512
    Thank Post
    1,320
    Thanked 469 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    199
    No plans to use exchange for voice yet.

    I guess I can keep myself and the boss happy if we get his overkill server, and then I also put an exchange VM on the SAN and use the 2 of them in HA with a DAG ?

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 5th January 2012, 10:57 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22nd June 2011, 01:44 PM
  3. Specs for Exchange 2010
    By Gibson335 in forum Wireless Networks
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 18th June 2011, 05:55 PM
  4. Opinions of Raid set up for new server.
    By tosca925 in forum Windows
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 31st January 2007, 10:15 PM
  5. New Harddrive for Server
    By Pear in forum Hardware
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 10th January 2006, 04:18 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •