Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
We are considering moving to Exchange 2007 for our internal email needs. I'm interested to know what sort of spec Exchange needs to run these days? I am aware of the 64bit OS requirement.
Posted

My setup is just for a few users:

Windows Server 2008 64bit

Dual Intel Quadcore 2.4Ghz

4Gb - more the better,take this as minimum

RAID5 3x 146gb SAS 15k hot swap drives - suspect you will need a bit more than this :)

Posted

we're running server 2003 on a dual intel quad core 2.33ghz, 8GB of RAM, 500gb log partition and 2tb store partition.

 

This is for 2500 mailboxes, it's running pretty well, but could do with a little more RAM.

Posted (edited)

Ours is CA/HUB/MB on Server 2008 64bit

4 GB ram

2 vCpu

C= Windows 25GB

D= ProgFiles 10GB

E= TLs 10GB

F= Store 80GB

Might add disk another for LCR.

Edited by Theblacksheep
Posted
A side note. If you see that allot of RAM is not being use dont assume you need more. With Exchange the more RAM you will give it the more it will use. It would put the whole mailbox store in RAM if it could.
  • Thanks 1
Posted

Not as the destroyer of ideas etc - since we're only just moving up into EX2k7 (we bought licenses etc already)

 

But, Have you thought about skipping it and going to EX2010? From what I can see, it's got something like 70% IOps requirements over 2k7 and plenty more things...

Posted
But, Have you thought about skipping it and going to EX2010? From what I can see, it's got something like 70% IOps requirements over 2k7 and plenty more things...

 

It took exchange 2007 a service pack to sort itself out, I imagine 2010 will take a little while too... I know its in beta, but whens RC scheduled for?

Posted
Zimbra. New head situplating 'Industry Standard' software.

 

Thought it would be something out of your hands that you are not using linux :rolleyes:

Posted
Not as the destroyer of ideas etc - since we're only just moving up into EX2k7 (we bought licenses etc already)

 

But, Have you thought about skipping it and going to EX2010? From what I can see, it's got something like 70% IOps requirements over 2k7 and plenty more things...

 

We're also considering skipping Exchange 2k7 and going straight to 2010. The last I'd heard we were looking at a release around the end of the year, it looks like most people are still suggesting late 2009 or early 2010. Yes, we'd probably want to wait a little while, maybe even for SP1, before going to 2010, but I'd rather have to stick with 2003 a little longer than have to make two Exchange migrations in the space of a year or two. Does anyone know what the upgrade path from 2003 to 2010 will be?

 

As far as Exchange 2007 goes, the MS docs are comprehensive but take a while to go through:

 

Exchange 2007 TechNet

 

Exchange 2007 Deployment

 

Cheers,

Chris

Posted
I see some of you have posted your partition (disk?) configurations. What's best practice in this regard?

 

Ideally you want the transaction logs on a seperate disks to the information stores. The way we have it at our place is:

 

C:\ 40Gb or so

 

D:\ CD-ROM/DVD Rom drive

 

E:\ Transactions logs on local disks (SAS 10K)

 

F:\ Information stores (on the Storage Area Network NetApp Storevault S500)

 

I would advise 8GB RAM for the server as 4Gb for exchange 2007 is considered a mimimum so if you can afford it spec it for 8Gb i.e. 4 x 2G modules.

 

Ash.

Posted (edited)
Ideally you want the transaction logs on a seperate disks to the information stores. The way we have it at our place is:

 

C:\ 40Gb or so

 

D:\ CD-ROM/DVD Rom drive

 

E:\ Transactions logs on local disks (SAS 10K)

 

F:\ Information stores (on the Storage Area Network NetApp Storevault S500)

 

I would advise 8GB RAM for the server as 4Gb for exchange 2007 is considered a mimimum so if you can afford it spec it for 8Gb i.e. 4 x 2G modules.

 

How does one calculate the size required for E: and F:?

 

Why is Zimbra not industry standard software also you would get better support?

 

I've noted that arguing with ones head teacher, even when you think they are wrong, isn't worth it. Besides, it's not like I've been told to upgrade everything to Vista. Exchange isn't that bad and to be fair it does do things Zimbra currently can't.

Edited by Geoff
Posted
Exchange isn't that bad and to be fair it does do things Zimbra currently can't.

 

Is there really much dislike for Exchange around? Don't get me wrong, MS have made some pretty bad stuff from time to time, but I always thought Exchange was a pretty solid product. If you're paying educational pricing then it's cheap as well. It's not the best solution for every environment by any means, but for those running a primarily Windows domain I would have thought it made the most sense?

 

Cheers,

Chris

Posted
I would have thought that at least presenting the option and cost would make them pause. What is your head doing sticking his nose in any way your are delivering the IT to the objective he has set. I just think that running exchange should not be taken in isolation.
Posted (edited)
You Had Me At EHLO... : Exchange 2007 Mailbox Server Role Storage Requirements Calculator

 

Although our students are on tiny mailboxes and wouldn't count even as a light user, so the MS calculator comes out well over priced/specified.

 

Shame I don't have office 2007...

 

I would have thought that at least presenting the option and cost would make them pause. What is your head doing sticking his nose in any way your are delivering the IT to the objective he has set. I just think that running exchange should not be taken in isolation.

 

Well I've already calculated the licensing costs and as you can see I'm working on the hardware requirements. Once I've got some numbers; the business manager/head can decide if it's worth £XXX for the extra 5% or so functionality - that we're likely to use - Exchange offers over Zimbra. As for sticking his nose in, he isn't. Our NM left recently and the new Business manager had not started. As a result Technical Support ended up being directly line managed by the Head for a month or so, when this issue was discussed. Quite a unique set of circumstances I think.

Edited by Geoff

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...