I need hardware recommendations for Exchange 2000

[BOK]

Question: what do I need in terms of server hardware (CPU, # of CPUs, RAM, disk (raid or no?), etc.) for the following:

Windows 2000 Advanced server, running Exchange 2000 Enterprise server. 130 clients. Moderate e-mail volume. There will also be some sort of external storage device attached (either SCSI or network) to the server for real-time archival.

 

[Vegito]

130 clients ?

Are you looking at server or servers ?

at least 8GB RAM MINIMUM

I have 16 users with 36GB RAID 5 storage and 2GB Memory isn't hacking it..

I probably have to divide my mail server into public and private storage.

How are you planning to archive the mail ? Memory may depend on storage capacity.. ie lots of online mail, more memory, if mail is archive, less memory.. but still memory is good

 

[BOK]

Two servers clustered using Win 2000 Adv Server clustering. Storage on the server will be short-term (maybe 1 month worth at the most). You really need that much RAM?! Holy Christ! And for only 16 e-mail accounts? Is disk performance important?

 

[DcHoliday9]

<< 130 clients ?

Are you looking at server or servers ?

at least 8GB RAM MINIMUM

I have 16 users with 36GB RAID 5 storage and 2GB Memory isn't hacking it..

I probably have to divide my mail server into public and private storage.

How are you planning to archive the mail ? Memory may depend on storage capacity.. ie lots of online mail, more memory, if mail is archive, less memory.. but still memory is good >>



What the hell are you running on Exhcange? Our Exchange server used to be a PII350 with 512 RAM for about 150 people. Now were on a Poweredge 2500 with 1gb of Ram and it works just fine. I can't belive that Exchange 2000 has that much more over-head then Ex5.5.

forcesho you should be looking for a server around 1Ghz with about 1GB of RAM. A Raid 5 set up. I like our Dell because is has a split backplane so we have our W2K and Ex5.5 on the C drive(2 9GB SCSI in Raid 1) and all the Data on the D drive(3 18GB SCSI drives in a Raid 5). If you go with something like this it should cost about $5,000 from Dell. You don't need 8GB of Ram for 130 users.

 

[WarCon]

I agree, I set up an exchange server (5.5) for a girls school for intra office and internet mail and it had ~80 users and it was running on the main server (pentium pro, I think it was a 200, with 64 or 128 megs of memory(they were poor, exchange almost busted their tech budget)) and it ran fine. It transferred mail without delays. I think I limited everyone to 10 megs and really never had an issue with space. I don't think you really want to be running large files through your mail server anyway. Better more efficient ways to do that.

 

[BOK]

<< I don't think you really want to be running large files through your mail server anyway. Better more efficient ways to do that. >>



Such as?

 

[bigshooter]

We have a (well had since I just got laid off) 20 meg mailbox size limitation for regular users on our exchange system. If you have 2 gigs of ram and it isn't cutting it, then you are using it for more than just regular email with small attachments. I guess if you are using it as a netmeeting server as well with all the added gizmos that exchange enterprise version has then you might need some beefier hardware. I think our mailbox server only had a gig of ram and it handled about 450 users. Of course we had a seperate server for the bridgehead, but we could have easily run it on the same box.

 

[WarCon]

I would use a client upload enabled ftp server and have the shared space be a separate hard drive or server, if you planning on serving huge files.

 

[Vegito]

i'm the guy with avg mail box of 1gb / user...

also we get crap loads of research attachments so they're all save online...

e2k is fine but like I say, it really depends on how much storage you wanna keep online..

I kept 3 years of mail online so it's memory hungry heheh

so if your keeping 20mb mail box, 512 meg is probably good..

I'm using 4x 18gb 10k atlas raid 5 with 64mb cache with 1 hot fail.


For small site

You can even get a used server like

Dual P3 500-700
512MB RAM with option for 1gb ie using 1 512 dimm in a 4 dimm motherboard or 2x256 in a 4 dimm mobo for future upgrades
18GB x 2 Mirror for Main OS & Program
18GB X 4 RAID 5 for data/logs

or 36 GB drives x3 or x4 you'll want that extra space for upgrades and stuff... eventually exchange 2002 or whatever it's call exchange.net might be a sql hybrid crap...

etc.etc.

 

[BFG10K]

I've got a Dual P3 1000 MHz Intel Server with 1 GB RAM running my work system and it runs just fine with Windows 2000 Small Business Server and Exchange 2000. I've got about 35 users who all have logins and exchange mailboxes.

I've even got real-time virus protection enabled (Norton) and it's extremely rare for either CPU to go above 30% during the busy periods.

 

[BOK]

A couple questions:

Does dual CPUs really help Exchange 2000 server?

Does the amount of RAM you need depend on the following two variables - # of mailboxes (users), and size limit of mailbox?

 

[bozo1]

<< Does dual CPUs really help Exchange 2000 server? >>


Most definitely.


<< Does the amount of RAM you need depend on the following two variables - # of mailboxes (users), and size limit of mailbox? >>


Size limit of mailboxes, no. # of mailboxes, no. # of users connected at once, yes.

Some of those recommendations above are totally out of whack.
I have Exchange2K servers with 800 users, 50GB Information Stores running quite happily ( < 20% utilization) on dual PIII-550's with 1GB Ram.
If 2GB isn't hacking it for 16 users as was stated above, you got problems somewhere.

 

[BOK]

Thanks bozo1. What about disk performance? Will a single 10K U160 drive do it, or should I go RAID 5?

 

[DcHoliday9]

<< Thanks bozo1. What about disk performance? Will a single 10K U160 drive do it, or should I go RAID 5? >>



A single one should be fine but if it goes bad there goes your data. You could set up a RAID 1 set up but people normal pay the extra cost just to go with a RAID 5 for the speed. Eventhough I don't think you will notice a difference in performance. I would go with RAID 5 because of the performance and the fact that if one drive takes a crap you will still be up and running.

I know that this can be done with RAID 1 but if you all ready have the controller card why not just buy one more hard drive and set up a RAID 5

 

[bozo1]

For performance and disaster recovery, the recommendation is to put your transaction logs and your Information Stores on different sets of disks. Most of us use a mirrored pair of disks for the transaction logs (you need your greatest speed here) and our info stores on a RAID-5 array. If money is an issue, just share the mirrored disks for your transaction logs with your boot disks.