Speccing an Exchange Server

[pcwilson]

Hi Guys

I've had the okay from my FD to go ahead with upgrading from NT4/Exchange 5.5 to Windows Server 2003 and Exchange Server 2003, and I'm looking for some advice on speccing the new servers. We have three sites, approximately 50 users per site. We will have one server per site doing core network services, file and print, and Exchange server.

I'm looking for advice on speed/number of processors, amount of RAM, best disk configuration to use, and also any recommendations on brand. I normally buy IBM servers but I have no particular loyalty.

Cheers
Phil

[mattley]

A couple of my clients are running 70 users on a self built beige box with 2 gig P4's, a gig of RAM and mirrored IDE drives with Sony DLT's for backup. No problems with performance at all unless you're working late and the backup kicks in, and even then max delivery time is only a couple of minutes. So pretty much anything you buy now will work fine, exchange isn't that resource hungry unless all users are sharing diaries and making heavy use of public folders.

I use the built in backup as I've always found TP solutions more trouble than they're woth, but if the ability to restore a single mailbox is important maybe someone else can advise.

As for brand, If you're happy IBM and (more importantly) have a good relationship with your reseller service and suppport wise, I wouldn't change.

[randlemarcus]

50 users per Exchange server seems terribly low, to be honest - what sort of bandwidth are we talking between sites. Would be tempted to see if I could splash a little cash on a link upgrade, and consolidate into the centre.

Single proc ought to be fine, especially if dual cored, and my rule of thumb is 4gb RAM for an exchange server: 1Gb OS, 1Gb Antivirus, 2 Gb for exchange. You may want to consider hanging fire, and seeing if Exchange 12 is better for your needs, as you may be able to impress with the Unified Communications bits.

[pcwilson]

mattley said:

A couple of my clients are running 70 users on a self built beige box with 2 gig P4's, a gig of RAM and mirrored IDE drives with Sony DLT's for backup. No problems with performance at all unless you're working late and the backup kicks in, and even then max delivery time is only a couple of minutes. So pretty much anything you buy now will work fine, exchange isn't that resource hungry unless all users are sharing diaries and making heavy use of public folders. I use the built in backup as I've always found TP solutions more trouble than they're woth, but if the ability to restore a single mailbox is important maybe someone else can advise. As for brand, If you're happy IBM and (more importantly) have a good relationship with your reseller service and suppport wise, I wouldn't change.

Hi mattley

Thanks for the advice. I've always used NTBackup too. Does everything I need, and I keep a recovery server handy for single mailbox restores.

Cheers
Phil

[pcwilson]

randlemarcus said:

50 users per Exchange server seems terribly low, to be honest - what sort of bandwidth are we talking between sites. Would be tempted to see if I could splash a little cash on a link upgrade, and consolidate into the centre. Single proc ought to be fine, especially if dual cored, and my rule of thumb is 4gb RAM for an exchange server: 1Gb OS, 1Gb Antivirus, 2 Gb for exchange. You may want to consider hanging fire, and seeing if Exchange 12 is better for your needs, as you may be able to impress with the Unified Communications bits.

Hi randlemarcus

We use an MPLS VPN solution from BT called Net EquIP. Currently, bandwidth is 256K all round, although I met with BT earlier this week to discuss upgrade options. I'm hoping to increase to 4M at the host site, with 2M at each branch office.

When is Exchange 12 due? I've never heard of Unified Communications.

[randlemarcus]

Now renamed to Exchange 2007, so towards the end of the year.. www.microsoft.com/exchange/preview/default.mspx

UC refers to the fact that your voicemail now lives in the message store and you thought the 150Mb mailboxes were a pain in the ass...

[pcwilson]

randlemarcus said:

Now renamed to Exchange 2007, so towards the end of the year.. www.microsoft.com/exchange/preview/default.mspx UC refers to the fact that your voicemail now lives in the message store and you thought the 150Mb mailboxes were a pain in the ass...

150MB? I wish. I have several users who I've had to put a 1GB mailbox size limit on, and they still struggle to stay within it. We are a printing company, and routinely exchange 50MB PDF files with customers.

[randlemarcus]

Can wholly sympathise. Have just finished saying "told you so" to a customer who didnt listen to me, and bought a small SAN before we'd specced up the 4Tb for Exchange One quick , but painful call to Dell later...

[mattley]

pcwilson said:

We use an MPLS VPN solution from BT called Net EquIP. Currently, bandwidth is 256K all round,

I suspect you're paying way too much for that, but I'm Mr gimme an IP range and a router, I'll do the rest. If the product works for you then fair play, I have issues with the way BT do things, but it does all seem to work.

At 256 up all round you could get that for the Generic business (20:1) fixed IP ADSL rate of £60 per moth per site, and run the VPN yourself. If contention is an issue, and you really need more bandwidth, check SDSL availability.

[mattley]

pcwilson said:

We are a printing company, and routinely exchange 50MB PDF files with customers.

Ahh, something I do know about

Normally I would take useage metrics, apply business process rules and a deign an infrastructure and workflow system that would allow for the best level of interactivity, whilst optimising available bandwidth useage.

Being in print I assume you have Mac operators/designers, and clients.

This combination, though vital to the business.......


..... you know what I mean.


Yeah, you need the bandwidth.

[pcwilson]

randlemarcus said:

Can wholly sympathise. Have just finished saying "told you so" to a customer who didnt listen to me, and bought a small SAN before we'd specced up the 4Tb for Exchange One quick , but painful call to Dell later...

Talking of storage, what do think is the best way to go in terms of performance for a general purpose server? RAID (if so what level, hardware or software) or no RAID, SAN, JBOD etc..?

[randlemarcus]

Your case, would suggest a couple of NetApp filers, one in site A, on e in Site B, and do an asynchronous replication of selected bits (scripted is cheapest, but most complex, or buy really expensive but easy)
Exchange is approved for NAS deployments these days, which is nice (and cheap).
Would strongly suggest a good long hard look at the way you deal with information and data as a whole before jumping into Petabytes of storage. You may be able to implement a hierarchical storage ie disk > tape > optical and save a bunch of money compared to keeping it on disk for ever.

Never forget though, that the above solution doesnt provide backup in the traditional sense, and you may want to consider a tape solution on one site or t'other. This, of course, is now a disk to disk to tape backup, which means you can write to tape outside the traditional backup window, i.e when you get in, and are reading the paper, and posting on PH