Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Looking at purchasing a server for running Exchange Server 2010. We do not have a previous Exchange instance running (all standalone clients using pop from our ISP). As it stands now, we will not have more than 100 email accounts (We have 57 addresses now with a few more planned).

  • Dell PowerEdge 610
  • 16GM Memory
  • 2x - Intel Xeon x5660 2.8Ghz, 12m cache 16gb
  • RAID 1/RAID 10 for H700 or PERC 6/i Controllers
  • 2x - 73GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 6Gbps 2.5in Hotplug Hard Drive
  • 4x - 600GB 10K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 6Gbps 2.5in Hotplug Hard Drive **
  • High Output Power Supply, Redundant, 717W
  • Intel® Gigabit ET NIC, Dual Port, Copper,PCIe-4

I will be installing x64 version of Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 + the Exchange 2010. Plan on using Outlook Web Access over https for sure, we do not have mobile blackberry, etc.. devices at the moment and would only have a handful if we end up with some.

Does this configuration and plan sound like it would work ok? Any bottlenecks or concerns anyone can point out?

share|improve this question
1  
You are forgetting the single most important point: how many emails is this server going to handle and store? Database size and message throughput are what is going to really affect performance. –  Massimo Nov 29 '11 at 15:15
    
We have 57 email addresses now, assuming each address receives about 100 emails a day...lets just say 6000 over an 8 hour day would be the maximum. –  justinlabenne Nov 29 '11 at 16:13

5 Answers 5

We have about the same number of clients as in your organization. We have recently migrated from Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2010. I gave the 2010 server only 8GB of memory, because that's all I had available in our environment. It's working like a charm.

share|improve this answer
    
Cool beans. Thanks. –  justinlabenne Nov 29 '11 at 16:03

I think you should keep aware of issues that arise if you have all roles and databases and logs on a single server. In particular keep an eye on where you place your databases and logs.

Exchange 2010 Database Best Practices:

-Place transaction logs and database files on separate disks (off the system disk and/or the location where Exchange is installed – you can move the location of your DB)

-Place transaction logs on a mirrored volume

-Place database files on a RAID 5

-Use the Exchange 2010 Mailbox Server Role Requirements Calculator to help you determine your storage needs. The latest version can be found here: http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2009/11/09/exchange-2010-mailbox-server-role-requirements-calculator.aspx -Note: Standard Edition supports 5 databases. Enterprise Edition supports 100 databases

share|improve this answer

We have a server with lower specs than you've mentioned and I would only point out the following:

  1. Exchange 2007/2010 will consume as much memory as it can and then release it when needed by the server.
  2. If you're planning on running other services/server like SQL or Sharepoint I would be cautious, they don't like living on the same box, memory becomes a serious issue.

Otherwise I don't see a problem.

Regards, Jacques

share|improve this answer
    
No other services at all. This will be 100% dedicated to Exchange 2010 only. Thanks. –  justinlabenne Nov 29 '11 at 16:02

The server looks like it should be able to handle Exchange. I tend to build my Exchange Servers with more memory (minimum 24GB) because Exchange will utilize it, but 16GB should be sufficient.

For storage needs, please take a look at the Exchange 2010 Mailbox Server Requirements Calculator that the Microsoft Exchange Team wrote to help with sizing questions.

share|improve this answer
    
This server will run all roles, and this article I read explains why I have initially chosen to only have 16GB of RAM( not sure since it only has the CAS and HT roles) networkworld.com/community/node/48015 –  justinlabenne Nov 29 '11 at 16:15

Spec wise you look good. I would caution you to check the size of the POP mailboxes currently, as uploading them to the server will take FOREVER if they're really large.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. I am 100% sure that moving to Exchange from POP will not be fun. Some of our mailboxes are massive due to those users that send each other large attachments all day long instead of using our file shares. –  justinlabenne Nov 29 '11 at 16:01

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.