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.
Printable View
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.
If you are unhappy with how much it is eating, limit it, just like you can with SQL.
@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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatt
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.
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 ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael
Cheers - I technically have a LAB environment (my house is my lab!) so that's not much of an issue for nowQuote:
Originally Posted by Tsonga
Though cannot see why its worst practice to throttle RAM when SCCM complains bitterly during install that SQL isn't throttled??
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbro
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sven
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.
Disagree, Use Zimbra... Far better!Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by chazzy2501
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsonga