Exchange2003 Paging File Question 1

[zoeythecat]

Hi All,

We have an Exchange2003 server that is not RAIDED, has one single drive and partitioned logically as C(System drive) and D (Drive where information store is located). Presently we have 1 GIG of RAM with the paging file set as 1023(1GIG for initial and maximum size). We plan on upgrading the RAM on this server to 3GIG. What would be the recommended way of setting up the page file? My concern is that the paging file is on the system partition, but I didn't want to move the paging file to the same logical drive as the Information Store. Or does this matter because this is one single (non-RAIDED) drive?

TIA,
Zoey

 

[zoeythecat]

Forgot to mention this is a Windows2003 Server

 

[Davetoo]

Since you're running your entire Exchange server on a single spindle, it doesn't matter where you put it, it's still going to degrade performance.

Why not, instead of upgrading RAM, you upgrade to a more appropriate server?

I'm Certifiable, not cert-ified.
It just means my answers are from experience, not a book.

There are no more PDC's! There are DC's with FSMO roles!

 

[Zelandakh]

You have Exchange apps and stores and transaction logs on a single disk?

You need management approval to mirror that immediately!! That needs to be handled as a priority. Then a RAM upgrade then look to increase number of spindles to improve performance.

As Dave says, new server would be more appropriate.

 

[zoeythecat]

Thanks for the replies. I appreciate the concerns. We did purchase a new RAIDED server. We will be eventually transitioning to Exchange2007 on this new server. We also have a SAN (Not in production yet) and we will be moving the Store and Transaction logs over to the SAN. So in the long term we are good, we just wanted to upgrade the RAM in the short term on the current server to at least boost the performance presently. I know our current situation is not recommended. We've been playing with fire for a long time, and hopefully (knocking on wood) it will last us a couple more months.

 

[zbnet]

We only agree to give you this information on the express condition that you promise to run, not walk, very quickly indeed towards a fully-RAIDed, properly resiliant server setup for your production Exchange server

Okay, the page file on Exchange 2003 should always be at least as big as the physical RAM, preferably 1.5 times the size of the physical RAM. But run ExBPA (Exchange Best Prtactise Analyser) after you upgrade the RAM, it will have an opinion.

If you don't make the pagefile big enough, Exchange throttles back its use of RAM for information store cache, which puts more load back on the disk-based database files.

 

[zoeythecat]

(Laughing). I'm jogging right now. Once I build up some stamina I will start running towards that RAID finish line. Thanks for the comments.

You are right. The ExBPA helped me along with setting the paging file correctly after I upgraded the RAM.

I should correct my original post. This server was purchased with 2 hard disks, but neither disk is in a RAID configuration. The system volume is on a disk by itself and the Exchange database resides on the 2nd disk.

Another question. I have the transaction logs on the same disk as the Exchange Database. Of course the ExBPA is yelling at me for this. I'm not sure if it's a good idea moving the transaction logs to the other volume, this being the Windows System Volume. I know in a perfect scenario the datbase would be on a RAIDED volume by itself and the Transaction Logs would be on a RAIDED volume by itself, but in my current situation what would you suggest? Do I leave it as is? I'm just trying to optimize my current situation as best as possible.

 

[zbnet]

How big are the disks? How much spare room on them? How many users?

Your biggest issue with having IS and logs on the same physical volume is, if it fails you have data loss - because you're only as good as your last backup. So if your users wouldn't care about losing all email send and received since the last good backup, then don't change anything, especially if the response of Exchange is acceptable.

Seperating the dbs and the logs to different physical drives means loss of either drive, and you can recover with no (or at least very minimal) data loss. Plus Exchange might be a bit more responsive, as the logs tend to write sequentially, but the disk with the dbs on uses more random access. Combine the two functions on one drive, and the heads are forever skipping between the dbs and the transaction logs!

 

[zoeythecat]

Zbnet,

Thanks for the info. I'll leave everything as is.

If I could turn the clock back to 2003 we would have purchase our server more carefully. Going forward I know what we need to do now.

Regards