[nobody7290]

I dont want to pollute a thread, so I start a new one.
see here:
http://www.blackberryforums.com/bes-...ml#post1458680

I think, Exchange 2007 has a sluggish user interface compared to Exchange 2003.

But Other people think different about it - see below.
Even if this is a Blackberry forum many things are related to exchange.

I thought I did my homework when installing exchange 2007 - including reading and using the exchange best practice analyzer tool.
Machine is a DC 2GHz ( 775) CPU, 8GB Ram ( Dell PE860). 2 1.5TB Disks - (windows software Raid-1).
So, not much of a big Server, but I think that should be enough for a Database of 8GB and 3 Active users.

When I start the Exchange admin console then....
"adding snap in" ..... "expand ...." and nearly 20seconds later the managment console opens - that machine is idle at about 25% CPU during this process.
opening Server configuration, Mailbox, it takes 10seconds.

This is, what I call "sluggish".
Not very annoying, because, normally exchange is just running,
But, the old box, with Exchange 2000, ( a single core 1.8Ghz Athlon with 1GB of ram), similar operations with the same database took a fraction of time.

And, I just have setup a new SBS 2008 on a brand new quad core Xeon machine, with hardware raid. It does not behave better.

any thoughts what I could do to improve this. ?



---------------
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nobody7290
Bes 5.0MR2, no problems for the last hours.

a little rant:
exchange 2007 is the worst exchange M$ has ever made.
looks like they tried to proof that it is possible to create Enterprise class software with net framework. The result is something that works - like vista, but with a very sluggish user interface.
Well if you took the time to do your home work on Exchange 2007 before deploying it you would notice that it requires a lot more hardware to run it than Exchange 2003 does. I have deployed properly for 100 mailboxes using Microsoft's best practices, in all the cost in hardward was just over 30K, thats more than half of what it costs to run Exchange 2003.

So because it's sluggish to you suggests to me and others here most likely that you have not properly deployed it!

[scorp508]

Originally Posted by nobody7290

I thought I did my homework when installing exchange 2007 - including reading and using the exchange best practice analyzer tool.

...and then....

Machine is a DC 2GHz ( 775) CPU, 8GB Ram ( Dell PE860). 2 1.5TB Disks - (windows software Raid-1).
So, not much of a big Server, but I think that should be enough for a Database of 8GB and 3 Active users.

Not even close. Exchange on a DC and RAID1 is as far from a 'best practice' Exchange 2007 setup there is. You've got two major applications there fighting each other for resources in both the memory and disk subsystems.

[nobody7290]

Thanks for your reply, but:
If you read my post complete, you had noticed:
the same happens on a (hardware) raid-5, SAS disks, unlikely, that the software raid-1 here is the culprit.
Also, Software must not be worse then hardware accellerated, but discussion about raid is not relevant.

[penguin3107]

Originally Posted by nobody7290

but discussion about raid is not relevant.

It's very relevant.
You seem to have only 1 raid array (whether is be RAID-1, RAID-5, or whatever) which is not good.

At the very least, I would have three separate hardware arrays, on a dedicated raid controller. (Not through Windows software.)
1 for the OS and/or Exchange binaries.
1 for the Exchange databases.
1 for the transaction logs.

Feel free to rant all you want about Exchange 07, but until you're running it properly then you have no real basis to say that it's the "worst Exchange ever".

[nobody7290]

Penguin,
I totally agree with you, that this recommended config will speed up the operation of the database, especially, when the systen is busy.
But for an idle system, with plenty of ram, I disagree. If currently the exchange managment console takes 20sec to load, it might load in 15 seconds on better hardware.

But, with exchange 2000/2003 it did load in 2 seconds - also on a not optimal configuration. This is what I am talking about!

Also, i know, that modern software needs more resources - i accept that, but still dont think this must be neccesary. Therfore i somtimes complain, even, if it does not change things.
And, I am happy in general with exhange 2007. Searching for somthing in the mailbox now is fast, because of the 64bit architecture.


I had a thing called "kaypro" it had a 10mn harddisk, and it had cpm as the OS + wordstar for writing.
If I remeber correct, from power on to using wordstar, it took something like 30 seconds.
The printed result did not look different from what I get from word 2007.

[jweek]

you can try compiling the powershell scripts...

12 Tips to Optimize an Exchange 2007 Infrastructure (Part 2)

see tip #10 or google update-gac.ps1

[nobody7290]

Thank youj, jweek,
This looks interesting and indeed is directly related to my question.
I try that out ASAP.

(I dont doubt the expertise of penguin et. al., regarding exchange and best of practise, but, i think they did not really understand, what I am complaining about - or maybe, I did not explain it exactly enough)

[scorp508]

Originally Posted by nobody7290

Thanks for your reply, but:
If you read my post complete, you had noticed:
the same happens on a (hardware) raid-5, SAS disks, unlikely, that the software raid-1 here is the culprit.
Also, Software must not be worse then hardware accellerated, but discussion about raid is not relevant.

It's very relevant and only one place I could start. RAID5 is even *worse* than RAID1 from a performance aspect so I don't know why you're thinking it should work better on 5. Let's face it, with the childish M$ title you probably won't be happy no matter what the solution is.

If you took the time to design a true Exchange server and did not slap the DC on there as well I think you'd have a much more enjoyable experience. In our environment EMC and EMS launch in mere seconds.

[jeffro01]

I'm guess the OP hasn't been doing exchange for very long. Properly architected, configured, and installed, exchange 2007 SP1 is by far the best version of exchange that has been put forth so far. It's much better than 2003 in practically every way. It all depends on how you have it setup.

Jeff

[nobody7290]

indeed, the tip which jweek gave helps.
The management console now starts in about 8 seconds.
(ony my not ideal configured test system with software raid-1 )

*Thank you*

[knottyrope]

Originally Posted by penguin3107

At the very least, I would have three separate hardware arrays, on a dedicated raid controller. (Not through Windows software.)
1 for the OS and/or Exchange binaries.
1 for the Exchange databases.
1 for the transaction logs.

+1^

[SmoothRunnings]

Under Microsoft best practices Microsoft Exchange server 2000/2003/2007 and soon 2010 should NEVER be installed on Domain Controller. Unless you are talking about using Small Business Server 2008 which is a something completely different.

Your configuration is completely wrong for Exchange 2007 itself to properly run. I have put together systems for clients using Microsoft tech notes on the system requirements on Exchange 2007 for 100 mailboxes which requires about 30k in hardware to do it right, as the same time I have managed to wing it for other clients who didn't have an extra 30k lying around on two hard drive 1U systems with 8GB of ram and dual xeon 3.2Ghz CPus.

Microsoft PSS will tell you point blank that your Exchange 2007 databases need to be on a separate set of spindles, same goes for the logs files, but if you don't have the money your best putting the log files on the system drive and putting the databases on a separate drive.

SATA drives are also too slow for Exchange 2007 but certainly not un-usable. Also your correct about the Exchange manager being a bit on the slow side, however if you take the time to patch the server and the OS, once you get Service Pack 2 installed you will notice the sluggish'ness will go away.

A.

[SmoothRunnings]

Originally Posted by penguin3107

It's very relevant.
You seem to have only 1 raid array (whether is be RAID-1, RAID-5, or whatever) which is not good.

At the very least, I would have three separate hardware arrays, on a dedicated raid controller. (Not through Windows software.)
1 for the OS and/or Exchange binaries.
1 for the Exchange databases.
1 for the transaction logs.

Feel free to rant all you want about Exchange 07, but until you're running it properly then you have no real basis to say that it's the "worst Exchange ever".

If you think that's bad just wait for Exchange 2010 to come out, it's going to need to a lot more hadware to get it running the right way! So get use to it now so that the next jump isn't so painful! LoL

A.

[SmoothRunnings]

Originally Posted by scorp508

It's very relevant and only one place I could start. RAID5 is even *worse* than RAID1 from a performance aspect so I don't know why you're thinking it should work better on 5. Let's face it, with the childish M$ title you probably won't be happy no matter what the solution is.

If you took the time to design a true Exchange server and did not slap the DC on there as well I think you'd have a much more enjoyable experience. In our environment EMC and EMS launch in mere seconds.

RAID 5 is dependant on the spindle sizes. DB's tend to run better if you use 73GB SAS drives in RAID 5 than if you use a larger drive because of the amount of surface space they have to cover.

Then again SCSI U320 is still a lot faster than SAS hardware even by todays standards.

A.

[nobody7290]

I must add another reply to this:
To all you guys who could not read about what this topic was about, and tried to explain the sluggishness of the Management console with an underpowered disk configuration:
It is because the console use a JIT compiler to build machine code out of a higher level language.
You Had Me At EHLO... : Avoiding Jitter: Jumpstarting the Exchange shell

No wonder, it takes ages until the program finally can launch. This Design has most likely a much larger footprint, and, if, must be compiled at runtime will hog the CPU and never can be as responsive as a "real" program.
Look at Java (or, at your blackberry).

I do not want to say this kind of design is good or bad. Depending on the purpose it can make sense. The performance penalty will also be less if using a better CPU or Disk subsystem. But it can never reach the launch time and execution speed of a compiled program.

And it explains the difference compared to Exchange 2000 or 2003 perfect.

[nobody7290]

I have to add another followup:
I discovered that (I runServer 2003x64, not 2008) Exchange tends to grab more memory then neccessary for the disk cache. That maybe also is related to a instance of vmware running on the same server (only needs 200MB, but has a memory partition of 1GB).

If I limit the Exchange cache to something which leaves a little room for other applications, the startup of the management console is fast.

[JRV]

Agree completely with nobody7290 about the underlying PowerShell being the problem. I've been running Exchange since 5.0. EX2007 is the best Exchange ever, with the most sluggish configurator ever, no matter what you run it on. MS & RIM (among others) need to stop building consoles on top of scripting languages.

The PS compile script is very tempting, but until I see it in TechNet as a supported practice I'm probably going to shy away from it.

(...23...24...25...) Well, gotta go: EMC finally loaded.

[GMCloud27]

Originally Posted by knottyrope

+1^

+1 here too!

2007 was to me as vista was to OS's, an interim. 2010 (RTM) has been a fantastic leap from 2003 but 2007 had begun the process. Sluggish yes to an extent (PS comment I agree on), if setup properly with good hardware, is wonderful. Given the overhaul and features implemented, it's nowhere near the lean and fast 5.0 but it's a trade off. IO programming changes in 2010 blow 2007 away though....

[nobody7290]

Followup:
Replaced the CPU with a Xeon 3200 2.4Ghz 4Core - a real bargain now, only 160 Euros.
That halved the startup time of the Console - now 6 seconds to launch.
And, when I click somwhere in the console, the feeling I am drowning in mud is gone.

[tduffy]

There is nothing right about putting any version of Exchange on a Domain controller. Not only could there be major performance and functionality issues, it would be a major security risk.