Performance Issue - possibly store size caused? 1

[mattKnight]

Hi,
Firstly, exchange really isn't my number 1 skill, but I muddle through the administration of our in house exchange (2003 Sp2 as part of SBS 2003)

I have a performance issue on our network (which I haven't really experienced) I've looked at the server perfmon and the average disk queue length peaks at somewhere in the 100 + area then returns to a normal range (lower than 10). I've looked at the process explorer (sysinternals) stats and the store.exe is consistently at the top in terms of disk access.

I have had to resize our mail store from the default 17GB already, and the last time I checked the store's size it was approx 35Gb (for 15 Users) At least one user has mail going back 8 plus years.... and a massive store size 7 or 8 GB. We also have some 20 inactive users whose exchange stores are still live( i.e. no new mail is received by them, but email is still kept on-line)

My question is how much of the disk performance hit is caused by this store size (I assume that exchange must be able to cope with up to 75GB) but how much extra resource is required to support this size of store.

If I had the clout I'd archive off a load of the old mail to PSTs and give them to people to mount as required. There is a pervasive demand that the "Old mail must be accessable because I need it" (about once every blue moon)

Am I on the right track with looking at the store size? Is reducing the store size likely to be the answer (or only a good step by eliminating it from the equation?) or do I need to look at other things.

I haven't included any server specs (as I am out of teh office and can't remember precisely what they are) If anyone thinks that they need them, I'll post them!

Thanks for you help

Matt

Take Care

Matt
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone.
My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.

 

[58sniper]

If I had the clout I'd archive off a load of the old mail to PSTs

Big mistake. BIG MISTAKE.

I've seen Exchange 2003 with HUNDREDS of GBs in databases, and mailboxes that are dozens of GB in size. All ran fine.

Store takes a lot of the available resources. That's by design, and why an Exchange server should be JUST and Exchange server.

What should be the concern is how big the store is, how long it takes to backup, and how long it would take to restore. Those directly impact your SLA.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[mattKnight]

Firstly, thanks for the reply 58sniper..

Big mistake. BIG MISTAKE.

I am interested in why you see this as a mistake. Please would you elaborate?

I've seen Exchange 2003 with HUNDREDS of GBs in databases, and mailboxes that are dozens of GB in size. All ran fine.

I am quite sure that Exchange work like that - if you throw enough resources at it...

Store takes a lot of the available resources. That's by design, and why an Exchange server should be JUST and Exchange server.

I see what you mean, but unfortunately as this Exchange server is part of Small Business Server, I can't change it.


Do you think that my performance issues with this server are not exchange store related?

Thanks




Take Care

Matt
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone.
My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.

 

[58sniper]

Well, .pst files can't be stored on a network drive. So you have data that's not being backed up, sitting on user workstations.

That data is not available via OWA.

That data is not available via mobile devices.

Known limitations with .pst files causes corruption, and data is lost (remember - it's not being backed up)

You can't virus scan .pst files

You can't compact the data automatically

Users will password protect the .pst file, then forget the password. And Microsoft won't help you fix that.

You lose Single Instance Storage

Data in .pst files takes more space that it does in Exchange

eDiscovery, legal holds, and data retention all become difficult, if not impossible, with .pst files

The list goes on and on.

Remember - Exchange 2003 is a 32bit app. 4GB of RAM is all it can handle - on SBS it's even lower. So it comes down to proper storage design. Databases and transaction logs on separate volumes. Paging and OS on their own volume. The rest of SBS data on separate volume(s). Plan for performance, not capacity.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[mattKnight]

I see your point now.

Some of these issues don't / or wouldn't affect us in this instance (we don't need access through OWA or mobile devices to this old data) but some undoubtedly would. I was certainly unaware of the corruption issues (I knew that PST files weren't shareable as such)


Take Care

Matt
I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone.
My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone.