"Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3EFAEAFE-C0CC-402C-B148-6D6B8FDC405D@microsoft.com...
> We have Exchange 2003 on Server 2003 with all service packs installed.
> The
> server has 16 GB memory total but only 10 is presented to the server.
> Have
> done the  /3GB and  /USERVA=2970 /BASEVIDEO /PAE switches in the boot.ini
> .
> All the Heapdecommitfreevalue is set as listed on the MS site as well as
> the
> ESE buffer set to what the EBPA stated would be the best value.
>
> Here is the deal.  When running the Exchange BPA it always says my memory
> configuration is bad and to avoid severe kernel memory depletion remove
> memory down to 4GB.  I am seeing some things that used to not be stated to
> do
> like using the /PAE switch instead of the /NOPAE but now are apparently
> OK.
>
> So I am asking in the real world on a machine that has 16GB total memory
> but
> only 10GB is shown to the server itself what would be the best memory
> settings / configuration for this?  It is a mailbox server with 1510
> mailboxes and of course is the life blood of the company so the best
> performance coupled with most reliable configuration is what we are after.
> Is there a newer document on this or can you all provide some insights?
> Thanks!

"Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3EFAEAFE-C0CC-402C-B148-6D6B8FDC405D@microsoft.com...
> We have Exchange 2003 on Server 2003 with all service packs installed.
> The
> server has 16 GB memory total but only 10 is presented to the server.
> Have
> done the  /3GB and  /USERVA=2970 /BASEVIDEO /PAE switches in the boot.ini
> .
> All the Heapdecommitfreevalue is set as listed on the MS site as well as
> the
> ESE buffer set to what the EBPA stated would be the best value.
>
> Here is the deal.  When running the Exchange BPA it always says my memory
> configuration is bad and to avoid severe kernel memory depletion remove
> memory down to 4GB.  I am seeing some things that used to not be stated to
> do
> like using the /PAE switch instead of the /NOPAE but now are apparently
> OK.
>
> So I am asking in the real world on a machine that has 16GB total memory
> but
> only 10GB is shown to the server itself what would be the best memory
> settings / configuration for this?  It is a mailbox server with 1510
> mailboxes and of course is the life blood of the company so the best
> performance coupled with most reliable configuration is what we are after.
> Is there a newer document on this or can you all provide some insights?
> Thanks!

"John Fullbright" wrote:

> PAE is not recommended on Exchange
>
> http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/12/14/416065.aspx
>
>
> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3EFAEAFE-C0CC-402C-B148-6D6B8FDC405D@microsoft.com...
> > We have Exchange 2003 on Server 2003 with all service packs installed.
> > The
> > server has 16 GB memory total but only 10 is presented to the server.
> > Have
> > done the  /3GB and  /USERVA=2970 /BASEVIDEO /PAE switches in the boot.ini
> > .
> > All the Heapdecommitfreevalue is set as listed on the MS site as well as
> > the
> > ESE buffer set to what the EBPA stated would be the best value.
> >
> > Here is the deal.  When running the Exchange BPA it always says my memory
> > configuration is bad and to avoid severe kernel memory depletion remove
> > memory down to 4GB.  I am seeing some things that used to not be stated to
> > do
> > like using the /PAE switch instead of the /NOPAE but now are apparently
> > OK.
> >
> > So I am asking in the real world on a machine that has 16GB total memory
> > but
> > only 10GB is shown to the server itself what would be the best memory
> > settings / configuration for this?  It is a mailbox server with 1510
> > mailboxes and of course is the life blood of the company so the best
> > performance coupled with most reliable configuration is what we are after.
> > Is there a newer document on this or can you all provide some insights?
> > Thanks!
>
>
>

"Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BBF5D76A-4CB1-474C-AE85-650ACFC04450@microsoft.com...
> Is that where instead you just make the switch a /NOPAE in boot.ini or do
> you
> have to do an other switches?  Here is an article stating though that PAE
> is
> OK.?  This is why I am unsure which to use.
>
> Microsoft have reversed their policy/recomendation on the use of the
> /NOPAE
> switch in the boot.ini file of servers running Windows 2003 with Exchange
> 2003.
> Microsoft's previous policy/recomendation was to set the /NOPAE switch in
> the boot.ini of servers running Windows 2003 with Exchange 2003. The
> Exchange
> Server Team have now found no issues running the PAE kernel or running
> with
> DEP enabled on these setups.
>
>
> "John Fullbright" wrote:
>
>> PAE is not recommended on Exchange
>>
>> http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/12/14/416065.aspx
>>
>>
>> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3EFAEAFE-C0CC-402C-B148-6D6B8FDC405D@microsoft.com...
>> > We have Exchange 2003 on Server 2003 with all service packs installed.
>> > The
>> > server has 16 GB memory total but only 10 is presented to the server.
>> > Have
>> > done the  /3GB and  /USERVA=2970 /BASEVIDEO /PAE switches in the
>> > boot.ini
>> > .
>> > All the Heapdecommitfreevalue is set as listed on the MS site as well
>> > as
>> > the
>> > ESE buffer set to what the EBPA stated would be the best value.
>> >
>> > Here is the deal.  When running the Exchange BPA it always says my
>> > memory
>> > configuration is bad and to avoid severe kernel memory depletion remove
>> > memory down to 4GB.  I am seeing some things that used to not be stated
>> > to
>> > do
>> > like using the /PAE switch instead of the /NOPAE but now are apparently
>> > OK.
>> >
>> > So I am asking in the real world on a machine that has 16GB total
>> > memory
>> > but
>> > only 10GB is shown to the server itself what would be the best memory
>> > settings / configuration for this?  It is a mailbox server with 1510
>> > mailboxes and of course is the life blood of the company so the best
>> > performance coupled with most reliable configuration is what we are
>> > after.
>> > Is there a newer document on this or can you all provide some insights?
>> > Thanks!
>>
>>
>>

"John Fullbright" wrote:

> The guidance conflicts.  If you look at the June 2005 blog it says you can
> use PAE, if you look at the december 2005 blog it says don't. Exchange
> itself is not PAE aware.  The sever, however, may have features like hot add
> memory or pci express where PAE is desirable.  The downside is that for
> heavily loaded server, you could see performance degredation or resource
> exhaustion.  This reall refers to Page Table Entries or PTEs.  When PAE is
> enabled, each PTE consumes twice as much RAM.  This effectively halves the
> number of PTEs available.  PTEs are used as pointers to buffers by device
> drivers like disk controllers or video cards, and by filter drivers like AV
> agents.
>
> As of Windows 2003 SP1, PAE is on by default because of DEP.  Even if you
> use the /NOPAE switch, it's still on.    You can read:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899298/en-us to understand DEP, however not
> that it should be optin that is on by default; optout turns off DEP (there's
> an error in the KB as well which increases the confusion).  Hot add memory
> also requires the PAE kernal hence the referenced blog.
>
> For 1500 users, it's not an overly loaded mailbox servers unless you're got
> an abnormally high IOPS/user.  I wouldn't anticipate any performance
> degradation if you enabled DEP.  I still would not put 16GB of RAM in the
> box, that's a waste.  If you have PCI express cards and/or hot add memory,
> you may want 5 or 6GB or RAM.  If you have hot add memory, the preferred fix
> is the dynamic memory registry key.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913568/en-us.  If you don't do this, you may
> want to consider disabling hot add memory.
>
> It would be really nice if MS would review all the conflicting docs and get
> the story straight on PAE on Exchange.  Until then, I guess the jury's still
> out.
>
> John
>
> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BBF5D76A-4CB1-474C-AE85-650ACFC04450@microsoft.com...
> > Is that where instead you just make the switch a /NOPAE in boot.ini or do
> > you
> > have to do an other switches?  Here is an article stating though that PAE
> > is
> > OK.?  This is why I am unsure which to use.
> >
> > Microsoft have reversed their policy/recomendation on the use of the
> > /NOPAE
> > switch in the boot.ini file of servers running Windows 2003 with Exchange
> > 2003.
> > Microsoft's previous policy/recomendation was to set the /NOPAE switch in
> > the boot.ini of servers running Windows 2003 with Exchange 2003. The
> > Exchange
> > Server Team have now found no issues running the PAE kernel or running
> > with
> > DEP enabled on these setups.
> >
> >
> > "John Fullbright" wrote:
> >
> >> PAE is not recommended on Exchange
> >>
> >> http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/12/14/416065.aspx
> >>
> >>
> >> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3EFAEAFE-C0CC-402C-B148-6D6B8FDC405D@microsoft.com...
> >> > We have Exchange 2003 on Server 2003 with all service packs installed.
> >> > The
> >> > server has 16 GB memory total but only 10 is presented to the server.
> >> > Have
> >> > done the  /3GB and  /USERVA=2970 /BASEVIDEO /PAE switches in the
> >> > boot.ini
> >> > .
> >> > All the Heapdecommitfreevalue is set as listed on the MS site as well
> >> > as
> >> > the
> >> > ESE buffer set to what the EBPA stated would be the best value.
> >> >
> >> > Here is the deal.  When running the Exchange BPA it always says my
> >> > memory
> >> > configuration is bad and to avoid severe kernel memory depletion remove
> >> > memory down to 4GB.  I am seeing some things that used to not be stated
> >> > to
> >> > do
> >> > like using the /PAE switch instead of the /NOPAE but now are apparently
> >> > OK.
> >> >
> >> > So I am asking in the real world on a machine that has 16GB total
> >> > memory
> >> > but
> >> > only 10GB is shown to the server itself what would be the best memory
> >> > settings / configuration for this?  It is a mailbox server with 1510
> >> > mailboxes and of course is the life blood of the company so the best
> >> > performance coupled with most reliable configuration is what we are
> >> > after.
> >> > Is there a newer document on this or can you all provide some insights?
> >> > Thanks!
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

"Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:FC53B65D-8345-43B0-A32D-4301443B26ED@microsoft.com...
> Well at this time looking at the Memory Free PTE counter it only has
> 10910.
> Checked one of the SQL servers for comparison and it was at 200K.  So I
> guess
> it may be time to use that /burnmemory switch in the boot.ini and get rid
> of
> the PAE.  Thanks to everyone for the input!
>
> "John Fullbright" wrote:
>
>> The guidance conflicts.  If you look at the June 2005 blog it says you
>> can
>> use PAE, if you look at the december 2005 blog it says don't. Exchange
>> itself is not PAE aware.  The sever, however, may have features like hot
>> add
>> memory or pci express where PAE is desirable.  The downside is that for
>> heavily loaded server, you could see performance degredation or resource
>> exhaustion.  This reall refers to Page Table Entries or PTEs.  When PAE
>> is
>> enabled, each PTE consumes twice as much RAM.  This effectively halves
>> the
>> number of PTEs available.  PTEs are used as pointers to buffers by device
>> drivers like disk controllers or video cards, and by filter drivers like
>> AV
>> agents.
>>
>> As of Windows 2003 SP1, PAE is on by default because of DEP.  Even if you
>> use the /NOPAE switch, it's still on.    You can read:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899298/en-us to understand DEP, however
>> not
>> that it should be optin that is on by default; optout turns off DEP
>> (there's
>> an error in the KB as well which increases the confusion).  Hot add
>> memory
>> also requires the PAE kernal hence the referenced blog.
>>
>> For 1500 users, it's not an overly loaded mailbox servers unless you're
>> got
>> an abnormally high IOPS/user.  I wouldn't anticipate any performance
>> degradation if you enabled DEP.  I still would not put 16GB of RAM in the
>> box, that's a waste.  If you have PCI express cards and/or hot add
>> memory,
>> you may want 5 or 6GB or RAM.  If you have hot add memory, the preferred
>> fix
>> is the dynamic memory registry key.
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913568/en-us.  If you don't do this, you
>> may
>> want to consider disabling hot add memory.
>>
>> It would be really nice if MS would review all the conflicting docs and
>> get
>> the story straight on PAE on Exchange.  Until then, I guess the jury's
>> still
>> out.
>>
>> John
>>
>> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:BBF5D76A-4CB1-474C-AE85-650ACFC04450@microsoft.com...
>> > Is that where instead you just make the switch a /NOPAE in boot.ini or
>> > do
>> > you
>> > have to do an other switches?  Here is an article stating though that
>> > PAE
>> > is
>> > OK.?  This is why I am unsure which to use.
>> >
>> > Microsoft have reversed their policy/recomendation on the use of the
>> > /NOPAE
>> > switch in the boot.ini file of servers running Windows 2003 with
>> > Exchange
>> > 2003.
>> > Microsoft's previous policy/recomendation was to set the /NOPAE switch
>> > in
>> > the boot.ini of servers running Windows 2003 with Exchange 2003. The
>> > Exchange
>> > Server Team have now found no issues running the PAE kernel or running
>> > with
>> > DEP enabled on these setups.
>> >
>> >
>> > "John Fullbright" wrote:
>> >
>> >> PAE is not recommended on Exchange
>> >>
>> >> http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/12/14/416065.aspx
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:3EFAEAFE-C0CC-402C-B148-6D6B8FDC405D@microsoft.com...
>> >> > We have Exchange 2003 on Server 2003 with all service packs
>> >> > installed.
>> >> > The
>> >> > server has 16 GB memory total but only 10 is presented to the
>> >> > server.
>> >> > Have
>> >> > done the  /3GB and  /USERVA=2970 /BASEVIDEO /PAE switches in the
>> >> > boot.ini
>> >> > .
>> >> > All the Heapdecommitfreevalue is set as listed on the MS site as
>> >> > well
>> >> > as
>> >> > the
>> >> > ESE buffer set to what the EBPA stated would be the best value.
>> >> >
>> >> > Here is the deal.  When running the Exchange BPA it always says my
>> >> > memory
>> >> > configuration is bad and to avoid severe kernel memory depletion
>> >> > remove
>> >> > memory down to 4GB.  I am seeing some things that used to not be
>> >> > stated
>> >> > to
>> >> > do
>> >> > like using the /PAE switch instead of the /NOPAE but now are
>> >> > apparently
>> >> > OK.
>> >> >
>> >> > So I am asking in the real world on a machine that has 16GB total
>> >> > memory
>> >> > but
>> >> > only 10GB is shown to the server itself what would be the best
>> >> > memory
>> >> > settings / configuration for this?  It is a mailbox server with 1510
>> >> > mailboxes and of course is the life blood of the company so the best
>> >> > performance coupled with most reliable configuration is what we are
>> >> > after.
>> >> > Is there a newer document on this or can you all provide some
>> >> > insights?
>> >> > Thanks!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

"John Fullbright" wrote:

> It'd be easier to use /maxmem=4096 than /burnmem= and doing the math. If you
> have hotadd memory, you need to disable it or the PAE kernal will load
> anyway.  The same goes for DEP; it's on by defrault and causes the PAE
> kernal to load.  Use /noexecute=optout to disable it.
>
> In the boot.ini, try
>
> 1. maxmem
> 2. noexecute=optout
> 3. 3gb
> 4. userva=2970
>
>
> John
>
>
> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:FC53B65D-8345-43B0-A32D-4301443B26ED@microsoft.com...
> > Well at this time looking at the Memory Free PTE counter it only has
> > 10910.
> > Checked one of the SQL servers for comparison and it was at 200K.  So I
> > guess
> > it may be time to use that /burnmemory switch in the boot.ini and get rid
> > of
> > the PAE.  Thanks to everyone for the input!
> >
> > "John Fullbright" wrote:
> >
> >> The guidance conflicts.  If you look at the June 2005 blog it says you
> >> can
> >> use PAE, if you look at the december 2005 blog it says don't. Exchange
> >> itself is not PAE aware.  The sever, however, may have features like hot
> >> add
> >> memory or pci express where PAE is desirable.  The downside is that for
> >> heavily loaded server, you could see performance degredation or resource
> >> exhaustion.  This reall refers to Page Table Entries or PTEs.  When PAE
> >> is
> >> enabled, each PTE consumes twice as much RAM.  This effectively halves
> >> the
> >> number of PTEs available.  PTEs are used as pointers to buffers by device
> >> drivers like disk controllers or video cards, and by filter drivers like
> >> AV
> >> agents.
> >>
> >> As of Windows 2003 SP1, PAE is on by default because of DEP.  Even if you
> >> use the /NOPAE switch, it's still on.    You can read:
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/899298/en-us to understand DEP, however
> >> not
> >> that it should be optin that is on by default; optout turns off DEP
> >> (there's
> >> an error in the KB as well which increases the confusion).  Hot add
> >> memory
> >> also requires the PAE kernal hence the referenced blog.
> >>
> >> For 1500 users, it's not an overly loaded mailbox servers unless you're
> >> got
> >> an abnormally high IOPS/user.  I wouldn't anticipate any performance
> >> degradation if you enabled DEP.  I still would not put 16GB of RAM in the
> >> box, that's a waste.  If you have PCI express cards and/or hot add
> >> memory,
> >> you may want 5 or 6GB or RAM.  If you have hot add memory, the preferred
> >> fix
> >> is the dynamic memory registry key.
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913568/en-us.  If you don't do this, you
> >> may
> >> want to consider disabling hot add memory.
> >>
> >> It would be really nice if MS would review all the conflicting docs and
> >> get
> >> the story straight on PAE on Exchange.  Until then, I guess the jury's
> >> still
> >> out.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:BBF5D76A-4CB1-474C-AE85-650ACFC04450@microsoft.com...
> >> > Is that where instead you just make the switch a /NOPAE in boot.ini or
> >> > do
> >> > you
> >> > have to do an other switches?  Here is an article stating though that
> >> > PAE
> >> > is
> >> > OK.?  This is why I am unsure which to use.
> >> >
> >> > Microsoft have reversed their policy/recomendation on the use of the
> >> > /NOPAE
> >> > switch in the boot.ini file of servers running Windows 2003 with
> >> > Exchange
> >> > 2003.
> >> > Microsoft's previous policy/recomendation was to set the /NOPAE switch
> >> > in
> >> > the boot.ini of servers running Windows 2003 with Exchange 2003. The
> >> > Exchange
> >> > Server Team have now found no issues running the PAE kernel or running
> >> > with
> >> > DEP enabled on these setups.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "John Fullbright" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> PAE is not recommended on Exchange
> >> >>
> >> >> http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2005/12/14/416065.aspx
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Transam388" <Transam***@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:3EFAEAFE-C0CC-402C-B148-6D6B8FDC405D@microsoft.com...
> >> >> > We have Exchange 2003 on Server 2003 with all service packs
> >> >> > installed.
> >> >> > The
> >> >> > server has 16 GB memory total but only 10 is presented to the
> >> >> > server.
> >> >> > Have
> >> >> > done the  /3GB and  /USERVA=2970 /BASEVIDEO /PAE switches in the
> >> >> > boot.ini
> >> >> > .
> >> >> > All the Heapdecommitfreevalue is set as listed on the MS site as
> >> >> > well
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > ESE buffer set to what the EBPA stated would be the best value.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here is the deal.  When running the Exchange BPA it always says my
> >> >> > memory
> >> >> > configuration is bad and to avoid severe kernel memory depletion
> >> >> > remove
> >> >> > memory down to 4GB.  I am seeing some things that used to not be
> >> >> > stated
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > do
> >> >> > like using the /PAE switch instead of the /NOPAE but now are
> >> >> > apparently
> >> >> > OK.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So I am asking in the real world on a machine that has 16GB total
> >> >> > memory
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > only 10GB is shown to the server itself what would be the best
> >> >> > memory
> >> >> > settings / configuration for this?  It is a mailbox server with 1510
> >> >> > mailboxes and of course is the life blood of the company so the best
> >> >> > performance coupled with most reliable configuration is what we are
> >> >> > after.
> >> >> > Is there a newer document on this or can you all provide some
> >> >> > insights?
> >> >> > Thanks!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>