Exchange Server w/ 2GB RAM SLOW 1

[lifegard2]

I just migrated about 75 mailboxes from exchange 5.5 to 2003. Yesterday I got the last of the public folders and mailboxes migrated over and switched the Exchange org to Native 2003 mode. Since then Exchange 2003 is running doggedly slow, slow enough that everyone is noticing.

The server is a Dual P4 Xeon 3GHz with 2GB of physical RAM. You'd think it would be able to handle the load. The only apps on the server are Exchange, WINS, and Symantec AV for Servers (with the recommended Exchange folders excluded from real time scanning).

I found the M$ best practices for Exchange 2003 on servers w/ greater than 1GB of RAM. I implemented the /3GB switch and /USERVA=3030 switches in the boot.ini file. I notice I have another switch in the boot.ini for "/NoExecute=OptOut". Not sure if this could be my culprit.

Whenever I look at taskman and performance, it shows only around 1GB of RAM in use and CPU usage is below 15% most of the time.

When I try and add counters to the performance monitor, I get a Visual C++ Runtime Error that mmc.exe has crashed, so I can't monitor any of the recommended performance counters.

Any ideas?

 

[xmsre]

How big are your databases?

 

[lifegard2]

the private databases are 14GB and the public are around 300MB.

 

[lifegard2]

OK, just got off the horn with Microsoft. Wouldn't you know it, they concurred with your conclusion. Anyways, they recommended installing the new SCSI RAID in the machine, installing the OS, and then installing Exchange 2003 w/ the "/disasterrecovery" switch enabled. They referenced KB article 822945 (

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=822945&SD=tech).

I have Symantec/Veritas BackupExec 10d w/ the Exchange Agent. I can backup the Information Store, mailboxes (is it redundant to b/u IS and mailboxes?), and pub folders. Then I can restore them to the new hardware.

However, I remember doing this same procedure with Exchange 5.5 years ago where you could simply copy the priv1.edb, pub1.edb, and tmp.edb files to the new server (of the same name), and that would work. I'm thinking that would be faster because after I install and boot from the new SCSI RAID, if I leave the SATA RAID in as a slave drive, I can just do a file copy. Then I don't have to wait the 5 hours for the backup to take place and the 5 hours for the restore to take place. Instead maybe only an hour or two as these huge databases copy from one array to the other.

Any thoughts or experience with this? Thanks again for all your help.

 

[xmsre]

Somehow, I'm not surprised by the MS recommendation ;-)

"if I leave the SATA RAID in as a slave drive, I can just do a file copy." Excellent. Leave it there afterwards. You can always use the space for staging service packs and hotfixes, running offline defrags, etc.

It's the same. After installing with the disasterrecovery switch, stop the stores. Whack the blank databases and logs. Replace them with the ones you currently have. Either make sure the paths are the same, or use adsiedit to edit the log path and database paths.

Works the same in 2000 or 2003.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/822676/en-us

 

[lifegard2]

Ok, I'll give it a try on Monday. Unfortunately I can't leave the SATA drives in place. They will be going back to the vendor for a credit to be applied to the cost of the SCSI drives. I like this idea because if the SCSI isntall goes bad, ideally I can switch back over and boot to the SATA RAID until I figure out plan B. Hopefully Plan B won't be needed. I'll make sure the paths are the same, it's much easier that way.

 

[lifegard2]

Grrrr, my vendor didn't stock the drives. To clarify, I should be looking for U320 drives and a U320 RAID card, right? I just looked at the specs, and the SATA drives are listed as U150, just shy of the U160 SCSI drives I have laying around. So I'm guessing U320 it is.

 

[lifegard2]

New SCSI RAID 1 installed last night on 74GB U320 drives. Removed old SATA drive array and will RMA it for refund. At the moment, avg disk sec write is 5ms, but there's no load on the server at this time (it's Saturday). However, when the SATA drives were in, the best they could do was around 150ms without a load. Now I'm debating on installing Symantec's MS Exchange AV solution on top of 2003. For now, the box is working and we'll see if users notice a speed improvement. I'll post again Monday after the users return to work.

 

[Zelandakh]

Nooooooooo.

I'd recommend against Symantec. It takes quite a performance hit on Exchange. It was a good product a few years ago.

 

[xmsre]

There definitely is a performance hit no matter which AV product you use. You may want to contact the major vendors, Symantec, NAI, Trend, Antigen, etc., and obtain evaluation versions. This way, you'll have a chance to measure the performance impact before committing to a single vendor.