Exchange 2003 and > 4Gb RAM

[The_Unbeliever]

Been busy prepping for a migration over to a rebuilt Exchange server.

Because Exchange Server uses the /3GB switch as it scales up, the Exchange Server computer cannot efficiently use more than 4 GB of RAM. Exchange Server does not support instancing, Physical Address Extension (PAE), or Address Windowing Extensions (AWE). Therefore, 4 GB of RAM is the maximum amount of memory that an Exchange Server computer can efficiently use.

Bleh. Suxx0rs.

Also :

We do not recommend that you use the /3GB switch parameter in the Boot.ini file for Exchange Server computers that are also Active Directory domain controllers or global catalog servers.

Lovely.

Just lovely.

I can feel a headache coming on. We're using Exchange + AD on our main server

So, what do you guys suggest? That I move AD controller functionality over to another server, and make the rebuilt PC an Exchange-only server (no AD)?.

blah.

 

[medicnick83]

Different thing but I had a issue with USB hard drive not being assigned a drive letter and found that in 2003, if you goto CMD and type DISKPART and then AUTOMOUNT ENABLE that apparently fixes the problem.

Have no idea why I'm posting it, but since you and having this headache with 2003, I thought I'd mention the fix to one of my headaches.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

hardee har har

/sets fire to gdiza's pc

 

[Lino]

Been busy prepping for a migration over to a rebuilt Exchange server.



Bleh. Suxx0rs.

Also :



Lovely.

Just lovely.

I can feel a headache coming on. We're using Exchange + AD on our main server

So, what do you guys suggest? That I move AD controller functionality over to another server, and make the rebuilt PC an Exchange-only server (no AD)?.

blah.

I would personally keep exchange and the (DC) Global Catalog on different machines. That way you can at least force PAE and at least this way should you have Exchange issues you won't have to take down the entire company down.

 

[AstroTurf]

Put exchange on the rebuild.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

We also have another option - migrate over to exchange 2010

Reason being the 130Gb+ exchange mailbox size. Giving me headaches as well.

Will see what a quote for exchange2010 + server 2008 will be - otherwise we'll stick to exchange 2003 and just do an exmerge and move old mail out of the mailboxes.

Fun... NOT.

 

[Asha'man X]

Exchange 2010 brings full blown Premium OWA support for most non IE clients, so if you are using alternate browsers, it makes life a lot easier. However, it loses Single Instance Storage capability, so the mail store is now going to get a lot bigger. It's bizarre that Microsoft removed it, as it worked fine in 2003 and 2007.

ExMerging the old mailboxes out is always a good idea, though time consuming. I hated that process myself.

 

[AvOk]

I would suggest moving it to another machine. With regards to exchange 2010, they have changed a lot and a big improvement from exchange 2007. if you were upgrading from 2003; a massive improvement.

How many users are on this box? You mention 130Gb, that depends on the amount of users. Would be interesting as I am facing the exact same issue, we have around 1000 mailboxes and the size is almost 2TB, some users have 18/20GB mailboxes! (we are running exchange 2007 CCR, 2 physical mailbox servers and 2 virtual HUB/CAS) In the next month or 2 we will be implementing Symantec Enterprise Vault to archive our exchange mailboxes.

I think in the end your decision will come down to budget...

anyway let me know how it went, i see the post was on the 20/09

 

[The_Unbeliever]

We got about 50 users on the box.

There are a couple of users with mailboxes > 4Gb... PITA.

We're putting a quote for software etc through, will see if the beancounters will approve...

 

[Elvis007]

We also have another option - migrate over to exchange 2010

Reason being the 130Gb+ exchange mailbox size. Giving me headaches as well.

Will see what a quote for exchange2010 + server 2008 will be - otherwise we'll stick to exchange 2003 and just do an exmerge and move old mail out of the mailboxes.

Fun... NOT.

Exchange 2003 standard has a max of 75 - 80GB DB storage size, how do get 130GB, or is that including public folders? Or do you have enterprise version?

I would love to know because I have to do regular offline defrags as the db is always on 70 - 75GB... it usually dismounts on 75GB

*edit* Only 50 users? Try managing 570 mailboxes with a storage limit of 75GB, damn nightmare, going Exchange 2010 in Feb 2011, will sort all those problems out...

 

[The_Unbeliever]

It is 75Gb.

It do dismount.

I have written a .CMD file which remounts the database at 00:00 midnight.

 

[Elvis007]

It is 75Gb.

It do dismount.

I have written a .CMD file which remounts the database at 00:00 midnight.

Looks like i'm in the same boat as you then, will be going exchange 2010 next year

 

[Elvis007]

I would suggest moving it to another machine. With regards to exchange 2010, they have changed a lot and a big improvement from exchange 2007. if you were upgrading from 2003; a massive improvement.

How many users are on this box? You mention 130Gb, that depends on the amount of users. Would be interesting as I am facing the exact same issue, we have around 1000 mailboxes and the size is almost 2TB, some users have 18/20GB mailboxes! (we are running exchange 2007 CCR, 2 physical mailbox servers and 2 virtual HUB/CAS) In the next month or 2 we will be implementing Symantec Enterprise Vault to archive our exchange mailboxes.

I think in the end your decision will come down to budget...

anyway let me know how it went, i see the post was on the 20/09

Did you look at Mimecast as a archiving solution? A "in the cloud" archiving service, uses quite a lot of extra bandwidth but you don't have to add any more software/servers to your own environment, maybe a extra 4mb uncapped adsl line for the extra bandwidth, but that's it.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

Did you look at Mimecast as a archiving solution? A "in the cloud" archiving service, uses quite a lot of extra bandwidth but you don't have to add any more software/servers to your own environment, maybe a extra 4mb uncapped adsl line for the extra bandwidth, but that's it.

And what should your adsl line go down? No thanks, at this stage cloud services is not stable enough to use in the south african context.

Overseas, yes, sure, but here in SA? Not yet, not until we can be sure of a reliable service.

 

[Elvis007]

And what should your adsl line go down? No thanks, at this stage cloud services is not stable enough to use in the south african context.

Overseas, yes, sure, but here in SA? Not yet, not until we can be sure of a reliable service.

Never had that problem before, and someday, if it happens, it will then go over the main diginet line... so not really a problem. The extra line is not necessary if you only want the archiving feature. Only if you want to use the Outlook plug-in to give users 100% up-time, in case your server goes down Outlook will pick it up and then pull the mails from the mimecast servers without you knowing it, over https, that is what the line is for actually... also allows for attachment stripping, attachments above a certain size gets removed from all incoming mails and you get a link to download it.
Our exchange server was down for 2 days last month and no one was aware of it, outlook works as normal, so no one complains... then you have all the time in the world to sort the server out as well...

 

[TheGuy]

I migrated us over to 2010 recently and it's awesome. You have to pitch all the features of 2010 to them.

 

[AvOk]

Exchange 2003 standard has a max of 75 - 80GB DB storage size, how do get 130GB, or is that including public folders? Or do you have enterprise version?

I would love to know because I have to do regular offline defrags as the db is always on 70 - 75GB... it usually dismounts on 75GB

*edit* Only 50 users? Try managing 570 mailboxes with a storage limit of 75GB, damn nightmare, going Exchange 2010 in Feb 2011, will sort all those problems out...

Had this very problem in a company I was working at before... luckily the new company had 2003 enterprise edition, our DB's here were around 160GB each.

Did you look at Mimecast as a archiving solution? A "in the cloud" archiving service, uses quite a lot of extra bandwidth but you don't have to add any more software/servers to your own environment, maybe a extra 4mb uncapped adsl line for the extra bandwidth, but that's it.

Privacy/security etc. is a big concern. Bandwidth becomes a problem when you have around 800 users in the HQ and another 300 or so offsite on remote locations where the links cannot be increased.

 

[The_Unbeliever]

*edit* Only 50 users? Try managing 570 mailboxes with a storage limit of 75GB, damn nightmare, going Exchange 2010 in Feb 2011, will sort all those problems out...

Ouch >.<

That gives 130Mb per user... BWAHAHAHA Ouch >.<