| Author | Messages | |
deji
Posts:262
 | | 11/16/2005 5:20 AM |
| I agree with you. This is one stupid Ώ] business decision that will
ultimately hurt E12 adoption. We reached the plateau of 5.5 to E2K3 mass
migration a long time ago. Most people still on 5.5 are waiting to see "the
Next Thing" and we can't seem to move them from their standoffish position.
Erecting a roadblock at this point (in the name of 64-bit innovation) will
create a huge disincentive to the adoption of this "Next Thing". The
customers have enough reason to not want to adopt new technologies "just
because......". Now MS is giving them more ammunition to not even bother.
I do not know what this was predicated on. Perhaps MS is going to pressure
the OEM into abandoning 32-bit machines. Perhaps they will succeed, perhaps
not. My hope is that this is merely a feeler from MS to gauge the industry's
reaction to the plan. I am guessing somewhere in someone's back pocket is a
card that reads "Hehehe....just kidding". If those guesses are wrong, then
let me hazard one more guess - MS is not REALLY interested in getting a lot
of people onto E12 because E12 is just a transitional platform (like WinME)
and will be abandoned as soon as it escapes from the Redmond lab.
OK, maybe I'm seriously wrong on all my guesses. In which case, I would have
to conclude that someone somewhere is seriously deluded. I don't see a lot of
customers clamoring for 64-bit. Not yesterday, not today, and 95% of the
clients I interface with don't have it in their 2-year plans. Drawing an
imaginary line and proclaiming "64-bit or die" will only lead to one outcome
- a premature death for all the hard work so far invested in E12. In the
absence of death, MS will surely run into the adoption roadblock ΐ] they are
currently contending with in the XP space - people see no need to move off of
Win2K (thank you very much), especially now that Vista is looming large.
Ώ] I guess one of the perks of being a partial observer is being able to
call MS decisions "stupid"
ΐ] Unlike a lot of people, I get paid to push MS technologies, so I have a
vested interested in getting maximum adoptions.
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of joe
Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 6:21 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a platform,
this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some nasty functional
problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha and the PowerPC. They
just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet. You still hear occasional
complaints about those being dropped though you hear a lot more of "what are
those platforms".
It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange Dev
must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64 bit so that
is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and design decisions
would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems as well, probably help
considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have helped the DSACCESS
problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security design and AD integration.
Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix much of
anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they are able to use
the more and more memory that you throw at it without having to use the
complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit. Some might call that
covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o)
Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy bigger/faster
hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older version of Windows to
run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be amazing how fast it is. The
hardware companies instead of bitching at MS should be paying them dividends
and praising them for driving the hardware industry.
Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going .NET....
joe
;o)
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA
aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003.
We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to you
guys?
Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember we're
just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007.... SBS after
that.
I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to drop
backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better security.
So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of 64
bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again, isn't it?
More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms are
looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and break it.
2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And
when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs because
of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks.
Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think?
Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to go...yeah
...that they need to do.
Tomasz Onyszko wrote:
> joe wrote:
>> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn.
>>
>> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12.
>
> Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned
> specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this announcement
> too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with exchange 12 which
> will be released in relatively short time.
>
>
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001335
Posts:0
| | 11/16/2005 5:31 AM |
| "If I had a nickel (0.05 USD for everyone else) for each time I've seen a golf-course decision cost more than a decision that was more technically sound, I wouldn't have to work "
And good thing, too, because there wouldn't be any work for you to do!
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!„¢
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:13 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
If I had a nickel (0.05 USD for everyone else) for each time I've seen a golf-course decision cost more than a decision that was more technically sound, I wouldn't have to work
For the record, bad decisions are not limited to government entities. Those same people take jobs elsewhere and it's why dilbert is so popular I'm sure.
I think the nail was hit on the head: it likely won't be the hardware technology that slows down the adoption. Many companies don't want to do inplace upgrades anyway, because as was mentioned in another thread, they run the current implementation on hardware so old, you have to go to ebay to buy replacement parts.
I've been seeing some companies buy 64bit server hardware, but most of the 64bit seems to be in the desktop space. I don't think servers are being replaced as quickly yet as they are just starting to fall to the wayside (beyond repair; EOUL) after the y2K upgrades and fixes.
By the time E12 and Longhorn hit the streets, there will be much older versions. What may happen is that folks look for alternate solutions so that they don't have to worry about being left without primary support on
E2K3 when that runs out, but also don't have to buy new hardware. In other words, they'd rather spend a ton of development (developing a solution based on commercial software) than spend a chunk on hardware upgrades. That happens. I have to question the wisdom of that decision though I understand it has to do with the way budgets are managed more than anything else.
It'll be interesting to see.
>From: "Rich Milburn"
>Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To:
>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>announcement
>Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:08:53 -0600
>
>I'm sorry big businesses and governments stereotypically
>make lousy IT decisions, they don't allocate the proper resources, they
>don't have the right people at the table asking the right questions of
>the vendor, you only find out the gotchas after you are 2/3rds into the
>implementation, and the decisions are based on politics and never using
>the right decisions. Nothing has changed there.
>
>Totally agree with that Susan, I've seen huge implementations, and
>multi-billion dollar contracts (did somebody say n-m-see-what?) based
>on political decisions made by some high level non-technical person,
>and then propagated while that person was still around even though it
>was obviously failing miserably and the price kept growing. I saw a
>$100M contract that was 2/3 spent before the hardware was even on-site,
>due to political design changes that we technical advisors kept
>challenging (like stacking all services - E, AD, FS/P, Web, etc on one
>small 2-box cluster, and eliminating branch office servers in 800-user
>branches) when we could have taken the other 1/3 and put in a killer
>solution ourselves, with manpower to run it when finished. Then they
>started to implement it and they kept finding things that didn€„¢t
>work. I left before that, fortunately :)
>
>Rich
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley,
>CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 9:30 AM
>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>announcement
>
>Question to big server land people?
>
>Is the hardware you are buying right now support 64 bit?
>
>Are all of these big businesses and governments planning for upgrades
>in the next two years? We knew Exchange 12 was coming out... there
>were rumors of a 32bit/64bit potential going on..... please feel free
>to wack me upside the head...but other than the loss of a true inplace,
>lift up migration [which has it's own risks]... what has changed?
>
>There's been rumors of taking that Garage door person's database into
>another database structure for a long time, right? Don't database
>migrations suck in general as a rule?
>
>Call me wacko, but I think the real issue here is not the lack of 32
>bit ...but the "okay Microsoft you are going to have to really step up
>to the plate and have a rock solid migration plan here". issue.
>
>Inplace legacy upgrades leave in their wake permissions that quite
>frankly suck. My sister works in Novell country [aka government]...
>and I'm sorry big businesses and governments stereotypically make lousy
>IT decisions, they don't allocate the proper resources, they don't have
>the right people at the table asking the right questions of the vendor,
>you only find out the gotchas after you are 2/3rds into the
>implementation, and the decisions are based on politics and never using
>the right decisions. Nothing has changed there.
>
>I think it was Deji who said that migrations have flattened out. I
>guess I'm just not convinced that saying there would be two versions of
>Exchange 12 would make the pipeline speed up. Mail is so mission
>critical these days... I don't think people rip it out lightly period.
>
>Look at this from the other side.... is this the event that will
>ultimately kill off Exchange 5.5 for good as it will be a performance
>boost?
>
>If you are going to mess with mission critical and upgrade.. don't you
>need to make a really compelling argument for it?
>
>ASB wrote:
>
> >So long as there is interoperability between E12 and Ex2K/Ex2K3, I
> >don't have a problem with E12 being 64-bit only.
> >
> >It's not like we can't get 64-bit hardware today. (I could see the
> >issue if they had said Itanium only)
> >
> >-ASB
> > FAST, CHEAP, SECURE: Pick Any TWO
> > http://www.ultratech-llc.com/KB/
> >
> >
> >On 11/15/05, Michael B. Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It was made in the Exchange product team meetings with the Exchange
>MVPs.
> >>
> >>I can assure you, our reaction was not positive. I think it is a
> >>serious mistake.
> >>
> >>M
> >>________________________________
> >>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:03 AM
> >>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>announcement
> >>
> >>
> >>Wow. I don't recall Muglia making that statement at the summit, I
> >>think
>he
> >>would have been beaten up pretty bad....
> >>
> >>
> >>"Muglia made several product announcements during his keynote address.
> >>
> >>As part of its commitment to 64-bit computing, Microsoft has been
>delivering
> >>products that are optimized for 64-bit, including the newly released
> >>SQL Server➢ 2005, Visual Studio(r) 2005 and Virtual Server 2005
> >>R2. To
>help
> >>customers take full advantage of the power of 64-bit computing,
> >>products including Microsoft(r) Exchange Server "12," Windows
> >>Compute Cluster
>Server
> >>2003, Windows Server➢ "Longhorn" Small Business Server, and
>Microsoft's
> >>infrastructure solution for midsize businesses, code-named "Centro,"
>will be
> >>exclusively 64-bit and optimized for x64 hardware. In a future
> >>update release to Microsoft's upcoming Windows Server "Longhorn"
> >>operating
>system,
> >>code-named Windows Server "Longhorn" R2, customers will see the
> >>complete transition to 64-bit-only hardware, while still benefiting
> >>from 32-bit
>and
> >>64-bit application compatibility. For the highest-scale application
> >>and database workloads, Windows Server on 64-bit Itanium-based
> >>systems will continue to be the premier choice for customers for years to come."
> >>
> >>The LH SBS package is pretty funny too... Imagine going into all of
>those
> >>small companies and telling them they don't have a choice but to buy
> >>a
>new
> >>server when they want to get the new security enhancements.
> >>
> >>I hope MS decides to support K3 and Exchange K3 for some time.
> >>Though I
>am
> >>already seeing a huge reduced emphasis and making K3 work right now.
> >>
> >>Any good non-GNU message/collaboration apps out there? Something
> >>with
>maybe
> >>a BSD license?
> >>
> >> joe
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian
> >>Desmond
> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:03 AM
> >>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>announcement
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Where'd you find that?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Brian Desmond
> >>
> >>brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>c - 312.731.3132
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >>
> >>
> >>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:33 AM
> >>To: exchange-2003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchange2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >>ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>Subject: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> >>announcement
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>This just in:
> >>
> >>"As some of you are attending IT Forum in Barcelona, I want to make
> >>sure those of you who are not get the latest updates. At IT Forum,
> >>Microsoft
>will
> >>announce broad support for 64 bit across many of its product lines.
> >>As
>part
> >>of that announcement we will be announcing that Exchange 12 will be
> >>64
>bit
> >>only. This is a significant decision for us and it is one that we
> >>did
>not
> >>make lightly. Many of you and your customers may have questions
> >>about
>why
> >>Exchange 12 will be 64 bit only and the mail below provides some
>background
> >>on the factors that lead to this decision and also the benefits from
> >>64
>bit
> >>that we are seeing in our early dog food & TAP deployments."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Martin Tuip
> >>
> >>MVP Exchange
> >>
> >>
> >.+-Ã… wè€ úiÿü0ç-Ã… ÷ÂÅ º+ƙòâ²Ã“¬Â§Ãƒ¢Ã‚²Ãƒ˜@Bm§Ã¿Ãƒ°ÃƒÆ’Ŷ+Þv*è®Ã¹Ã… ùE¬Â§Ãƒ¢Ã‚²Ãƒ“«r¯zm§Ã¿Ãƒ°ÃƒÆ’ Ã…¡Ã… V«r¯yÊ&ý§-Ã… ÷ÂÅ ¾4➢¨Â¥iùb½Ã§b®Å à /===
> >
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>-------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-------
>PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message
>or any attachments.
>This information is strictly confidential and may be subject to
>attorney-client privilege. This message is intended only for the use of
>the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this
>message, unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or
>using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
>you have received this in error, you should kindly notify the sender by
>reply e-mail and immediately destroy this message.
>Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
>criminal law.
>Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the right to monitor and review
>the content of all messages sent to and from this e-mail address.
>Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the
>Applebee's International, Inc.
>e-mail system.
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:824
| | 11/16/2005 5:49 AM |
| The first thing I thought of when I read the announcement that it was to
test the waters and MS would recall it as a "the person spoke out of turn".
Then I heard it was Muglia which shored it up quite bit. Now I am hearing
more in dept info from various places and fully believe that MS is
definitely intending to do this.
Regardless of what MS or Intel or AMD does, I am not so sure I expect the
death of 32 bit machines any time soon. They will just go to more lower end
uses than running a big bad GUI OS. Even if AMD and Intel drop production
completely, I expect you will see some Chinese/Korean Chip manufacturer
cranking them out. If at the same price or the 32 bit was cheaper I would
take the MP 32 bit system over a single processor 64 bit for a home system.
I previously bought the 64 bit system to do some eventual testing versus
thinking it was going to be so much better. I like 64 bit so much I am
running a 32 bit OS on it. ;o) I expect at some point someone will complain
that I need to make my tools 64 bit. I don't expect it to happen whole hog
or probably even at all for quite some time.
Without all of the whizbang GUI stuff, 32 bit is quite fine for many many
many and let me just say probably most applications. It would be for even
longer though the push is to go 64 bit because some apps have hit ceilings
in easy use of the memory they need. 64 bit is about memory and available
address space for resource allocation, etc. There are extended memory
schemes available for 32 bit just like there were for 16 bit and 8 bit. They
are a pain to code around though and no one likes to do it. When we go to
128 bit procs it will be the same issue, the apps are too fat to easily fit
in the memory space we have available at the time. I wouldn't even be close
to being stupid enough to say we won't ever need 128 bit...
Who was it that allegedly said "640KB ought to enough for anybody."?
For pure speed, multiprocessing, not 64 bit, is where we are and need to be
going. That also requires extensive work in the coding side of things
because code not properly written for MP purposes can perform very badly in
MP machines. This involved coding techniqus and smart compilers that can
generate good MP code. I have seen some in house apps in previous jobs that
failed in a stellar fashion once loaded onto production MP servers while the
test environment was entirely single processor. I expect there are folks in
software companies who have experienced the same with their apps. I also
expect we will have fun with some 32 bit apps that perform in quite unique
ways under 64 bit. Shouldn't happen, but lots of things that shouldn't
happen, do. That is just the way this stuff works or else we would all be
out of jobs.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:19 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I agree with you. This is one stupid Ώ] business decision that will
ultimately hurt E12 adoption. We reached the plateau of 5.5 to E2K3 mass
migration a long time ago. Most people still on 5.5 are waiting to see "the
Next Thing" and we can't seem to move them from their standoffish position.
Erecting a roadblock at this point (in the name of 64-bit innovation) will
create a huge disincentive to the adoption of this "Next Thing". The
customers have enough reason to not want to adopt new technologies "just
because......". Now MS is giving them more ammunition to not even bother.
I do not know what this was predicated on. Perhaps MS is going to pressure
the OEM into abandoning 32-bit machines. Perhaps they will succeed, perhaps
not. My hope is that this is merely a feeler from MS to gauge the industry's
reaction to the plan. I am guessing somewhere in someone's back pocket is a
card that reads "Hehehe....just kidding". If those guesses are wrong, then
let me hazard one more guess - MS is not REALLY interested in getting a lot
of people onto E12 because E12 is just a transitional platform (like WinME)
and will be abandoned as soon as it escapes from the Redmond lab.
OK, maybe I'm seriously wrong on all my guesses. In which case, I would have
to conclude that someone somewhere is seriously deluded. I don't see a lot
of customers clamoring for 64-bit. Not yesterday, not today, and 95% of the
clients I interface with don't have it in their 2-year plans. Drawing an
imaginary line and proclaiming "64-bit or die" will only lead to one outcome
- a premature death for all the hard work so far invested in E12. In the
absence of death, MS will surely run into the adoption roadblock ΐ] they
are currently contending with in the XP space - people see no need to move
off of Win2K (thank you very much), especially now that Vista is looming
large.
Ώ] I guess one of the perks of being a partial observer is being able to
call MS decisions "stupid"
ΐ] Unlike a lot of people, I get paid to push MS technologies, so I have a
vested interested in getting maximum adoptions.
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of joe
Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 6:21 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a platform,
this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some nasty functional
problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha and the PowerPC. They
just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet. You still hear occasional
complaints about those being dropped though you hear a lot more of "what are
those platforms".
It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange Dev
must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64 bit so that
is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and design decisions
would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems as well, probably help
considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have helped the DSACCESS
problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security design and AD integration.
Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix much of
anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they are able to use
the more and more memory that you throw at it without having to use the
complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit. Some might call that
covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o)
Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy bigger/faster
hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older version of Windows to
run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be amazing how fast it is. The
hardware companies instead of bitching at MS should be paying them dividends
and praising them for driving the hardware industry.
Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going .NET....
joe
;o)
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA
aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003.
We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to you
guys?
Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember we're
just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007.... SBS after
that.
I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to drop
backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better security.
So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of 64
bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again, isn't it?
More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms are
looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and break it.
2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And
when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs because
of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks.
Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think?
Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to go...yeah
...that they need to do.
Tomasz Onyszko wrote:
> joe wrote:
>> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn.
>>
>> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12.
>
> Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned
> specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this announcement
> too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with exchange 12 which
> will be released in relatively short time.
>
>
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| milburnr
Posts:12
| | 11/16/2005 8:19 AM |
| Makes me wonder if MS is not betting at least some of the farm on the quick 64 bit transition that Gates is certain is going to happen. If anyone has the potential to influence that switch, MS has got it. The switch to 32 bit was overdue, so everyone realized the benefits and it happened fast. But we've currently got a memory model that will allow us to quite comfortably handle reading parts of programs and files and caching to disk - even though it's common knowledge that caching to disk, or reading the next parts of files, is a huge speed bottleneck. Memory price was a barrier before - who could afford 1GB of RAM?? But that barrier is diminishing, when you can buy a fully functional PC for a couple/few hundred bucks. What if I did editing, or ran some kind of server software, that could load itself, or its working space, or its database, entirely into memory?? With a 3GB per app current limit, it doesn't happen now, so it's hard to imagine what kind of functionality could be possible in that model. The question I'm curious about is what is Microsoft's reasoning behind doing it - is it because they are too lazy to program 2 platforms, because they are too lazy to write efficient code, or because there is a feature set they want to use that is only possible with the extended memory space? There are a lot of applications (uses) that are pretty tough to tackle because of the datasets they require (i.e. genetic algorithms/neural networking/predictive analysis) but those might become more commonplace with the address space to handle them - with multiple processors yes but also with a TB limit on physical RAM.
Does all that help me read my list mail better? Probably not. At least not until I can set up rules that can research questions for me automatically and present me with a proven response I can sign and click send :)
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:47 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
The first thing I thought of when I read the announcement that it was to
test the waters and MS would recall it as a "the person spoke out of turn".
Then I heard it was Muglia which shored it up quite bit. Now I am hearing
more in dept info from various places and fully believe that MS is
definitely intending to do this.
Regardless of what MS or Intel or AMD does, I am not so sure I expect the
death of 32 bit machines any time soon. They will just go to more lower end
uses than running a big bad GUI OS. Even if AMD and Intel drop production
completely, I expect you will see some Chinese/Korean Chip manufacturer
cranking them out. If at the same price or the 32 bit was cheaper I would
take the MP 32 bit system over a single processor 64 bit for a home system.
I previously bought the 64 bit system to do some eventual testing versus
thinking it was going to be so much better. I like 64 bit so much I am
running a 32 bit OS on it. ;o) I expect at some point someone will complain
that I need to make my tools 64 bit. I don't expect it to happen whole hog
or probably even at all for quite some time.
Without all of the whizbang GUI stuff, 32 bit is quite fine for many many
many and let me just say probably most applications. It would be for even
longer though the push is to go 64 bit because some apps have hit ceilings
in easy use of the memory they need. 64 bit is about memory and available
address space for resource allocation, etc. There are extended memory
schemes available for 32 bit just like there were for 16 bit and 8 bit. They
are a pain to code around though and no one likes to do it. When we go to
128 bit procs it will be the same issue, the apps are too fat to easily fit
in the memory space we have available at the time. I wouldn't even be close
to being stupid enough to say we won't ever need 128 bit...
Who was it that allegedly said "640KB ought to enough for anybody."?
For pure speed, multiprocessing, not 64 bit, is where we are and need to be
going. That also requires extensive work in the coding side of things
because code not properly written for MP purposes can perform very badly in
MP machines. This involved coding techniqus and smart compilers that can
generate good MP code. I have seen some in house apps in previous jobs that
failed in a stellar fashion once loaded onto production MP servers while the
test environment was entirely single processor. I expect there are folks in
software companies who have experienced the same with their apps. I also
expect we will have fun with some 32 bit apps that perform in quite unique
ways under 64 bit. Shouldn't happen, but lots of things that shouldn't
happen, do. That is just the way this stuff works or else we would all be
out of jobs.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:19 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I agree with you. This is one stupid Ώ] business decision that will
ultimately hurt E12 adoption. We reached the plateau of 5.5 to E2K3 mass
migration a long time ago. Most people still on 5.5 are waiting to see "the
Next Thing" and we can't seem to move them from their standoffish position.
Erecting a roadblock at this point (in the name of 64-bit innovation) will
create a huge disincentive to the adoption of this "Next Thing". The
customers have enough reason to not want to adopt new technologies "just
because......". Now MS is giving them more ammunition to not even bother.
I do not know what this was predicated on. Perhaps MS is going to pressure
the OEM into abandoning 32-bit machines. Perhaps they will succeed, perhaps
not. My hope is that this is merely a feeler from MS to gauge the industry's
reaction to the plan. I am guessing somewhere in someone's back pocket is a
card that reads "Hehehe....just kidding". If those guesses are wrong, then
let me hazard one more guess - MS is not REALLY interested in getting a lot
of people onto E12 because E12 is just a transitional platform (like WinME)
and will be abandoned as soon as it escapes from the Redmond lab.
OK, maybe I'm seriously wrong on all my guesses. In which case, I would have
to conclude that someone somewhere is seriously deluded. I don't see a lot
of customers clamoring for 64-bit. Not yesterday, not today, and 95% of the
clients I interface with don't have it in their 2-year plans. Drawing an
imaginary line and proclaiming "64-bit or die" will only lead to one outcome
- a premature death for all the hard work so far invested in E12. In the
absence of death, MS will surely run into the adoption roadblock ΐ] they
are currently contending with in the XP space - people see no need to move
off of Win2K (thank you very much), especially now that Vista is looming
large.
Ώ] I guess one of the perks of being a partial observer is being able to
call MS decisions "stupid"
ΐ] Unlike a lot of people, I get paid to push MS technologies, so I have a
vested interested in getting maximum adoptions.
Sincerely,
Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
www.readymaids.com - we know IT
www.akomolafe.com
Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
Yesterday? -anon
________________________________
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of joe
Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 6:21 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a platform,
this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some nasty functional
problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha and the PowerPC. They
just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet. You still hear occasional
complaints about those being dropped though you hear a lot more of "what are
those platforms".
It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange Dev
must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64 bit so that
is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and design decisions
would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems as well, probably help
considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have helped the DSACCESS
problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security design and AD integration.
Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix much of
anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they are able to use
the more and more memory that you throw at it without having to use the
complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit. Some might call that
covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o)
Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy bigger/faster
hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older version of Windows to
run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be amazing how fast it is. The
hardware companies instead of bitching at MS should be paying them dividends
and praising them for driving the hardware industry.
Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going .NET....
joe
;o)
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA
aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003.
We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to you
guys?
Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember we're
just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007.... SBS after
that.
I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to drop
backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better security.
So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of 64
bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again, isn't it?
More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms are
looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and break it.
2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And
when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs because
of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks.
Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think?
Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to go...yeah
...that they need to do.
Tomasz Onyszko wrote:
> joe wrote:
>> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn.
>>
>> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12.
>
> Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned
> specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this announcement
> too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with exchange 12 which
> will be released in relatively short time.
>
>
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
-------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE------- PRIVILEGED /
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message or any attachments.
This information is strictly confidential and may be subject to attorney-client
privilege. This message is intended only for the use of the named addressee. If
you are not the intended recipient of this message, unauthorized forwarding,
printing, copying, distribution, or using such information is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this in error, you should
kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately destroy this message.
Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law.
Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the right to monitor and review the
content of all messages sent to and from this e-mail address. Messages sent to
or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Applebee's International, Inc.
e-mail system.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:824
| | 11/16/2005 12:19 PM |
| Lets call the goals dreams or designs and the hurdles real life or
implementation. I have seen a lot of cool dreams and a lot of shitty
implementations. I have seen some cool implementations too but for the
specific product in discussion, my thoughts on the implementation of cool
ideas is not very good, especially any time I have to troubleshoot anything
in Exchange which is quite often.
If MS doesn't keep the real world and implementation in sight, those dreams
are going to surpass what they can do and then after all of the promised
goals, they will have to start trimming back and begin looking like idiots
even though they really aren't for the most part. I know we haven't yet seen
MS miss a deployment date or have to drop promised features before, but it
is always a possibility if they don't actually have a strong understanding
of where they are coming from and what customers really need. Finding out
bad things in beta is really too late for a lot of this stuff. Finding out
in RC when a lot of companies actually start to look at the implementation
versus the propaganda is WAY too late which is why so many also like to wait
until SP1.
The good goal to go after... Under promise, over achieve. Then people tend
to love what you are doing and willing to put up with more issues. Over
promise and under achieve is a great way to get people to keep looking at
alternates. I think MS lost more people to FF from IE not because it was
necesarily better but because MS pissed people off by not listening and
responding. Then they have to scramble and then prove they can listen and
produce something people will use. In the browser world, I think that is one
that is fairly easy to see the trend and sway people back and forth on. The
bigger things like OS and Messaging systems aren't so easy to see and
change.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 4:52 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
Virtualization is exactly what I was thinking of when this came up. Great
minds and all that :)
I hear what's being said, but I think we're making some assumptions:
i.e. We seems to assume it's possible to future proof. It's not, so get
over it and plan accordingly.
We also seem to be focusing on the hurdles vs. the finish line. The hurdles
have to be overcome. That's why there's a team of people at microsoft that
work on this stuff vs. one or two people in between lattes Ώ]. Focus on
the goal and whether or not that's the right goal to have. Worry about the
details once the goal is decided on. Not before. Instead just make sure
the goal is the right goal to have.
Ώ] although there are those that might argue
>From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]"
>
>Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>announcement
>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:24:56 -0800
>
>The migration story/plan does indeed have to be bulletproof. I'm not
>ADMT changing the name in Longhorn like the supported story is now.
>
>BTW have we forgot virtualization? Putting all that we do on SBS is
>truly insane. I have Exchange by design sucking up RAM, I have MSDE's
>that cannot behave.
>
>Inplaces are crud. I don't like them for 2000 to 2003.
>
>I think Centro will pick up the larger SBS shops.. I think SBS needs to
>get easier and more of a "toy server" than it is now.
>
>
>
>
>Michael B. Smith wrote:
>>The discussion in this group tends to center on the large enterprise.
>>:-) There are a LOT more small companies than there are large companies.
>>
>>For many of my clients, this is PROBABLY (who can say with certainty?)
>>going to represent a burden. Most of them upgraded hardware with their
>>Exchange 2003 deployments, and most of them have not planned to
>>upgrade again within a five year window. However, I've found that my
>>smaller clients are much more likely to be early adopters of software
updates.
>>They like the feature content boosts. They like the "gee-whiz" factor.
>>They like being able to discuss that cool new stuff on the golf course.
>>Etc.
>>
>>To them, the end-user cost of upgrading isn't important. I don't think
>>that really starts showing up in most companies until they are large
>>enough to actually have an IT staff. They just want to stick in the
>>disk and go. (Generally, I get brought in later to clean that all up,
>>but that is another story...)
>>
>>It's already tough to sell them on having multiple servers. Now,
>>they'll need to dedicate ANOTHER server to messaging? Even if only
temporarily?
>>When they've already got this work-horse of a box running Exchange? Or
>>they have to shut down, ExMerge out their mailboxes, format, do a
>>disaster recovery reinstall, and ExMerge mail back in? At what cost
>>and risk?
>>
>>I think this is one release too early. I think the big guys need the
>>64-bit, absolutely. And I even understand WHY Microsoft only wants a
>>single platform. But I just think that it is one release too soon to
>>require it.
>>
>>I'm also concerned about some of the other changes in Exchange 12
>>being too far in the enterprise direction. With the server roles, the
>>lack of some integration that was present before, and other additional
>>elements of complexity - it may become much more difficult for the
>>small shops to roll out. That is another thing that is just too early to
tell.
>>
>>Oh -- and I had this discussion with a couple of the Exchange team as
>>well -- it DOES NOT matter even one bit that most of the server
>>hardware sold today is x64 capable. Because you can't just "flip a
>>bit" and suddenly you are running Windows 64-bit. It requires a
>>reinstall. Of everything. (And don't think that you can use that to
>>get around the in-place upgrade issue -- it would be wrong to ass/u/me
>>that E12 will mount an Exchange 2003 store. Another thing we've yet to
>>see.) And then you have to migrate. And fix DNS. And your Outlook
>>profiles. Etc. Maybe more stuff -- just too early to tell.
>>
>>It is a lot of details for the SMB. (And don't get me wrong -- there
>>are lots of really smart SMB's out there -- but there are also lots of
>>them that would find managing these details an impossible task.)
>>
>>I can just see dozens of difficult conversations with dozens of
>>clients upon release. I already dread them.
>>
>>M
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:00 PM
>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>>announcement
>>
>>I realize we're a bit off-topic, but...
>>
>>I disagree with this being a mistake. A lot of the problems with
>>Exchange (I'll limit the discussion to this area, joe ;) centered
>>around memory addressing. It wasn't until Windows 2003 SP1 that they
>>reversed the recommendation to use PAE vs. not. When clustering,
>>memory was always a limiting factor. 64bit price differential doesn't
>>seem to be terribly huge, so I'm not sure what the objection is other
>>than it may slow down adoption for those that purchased new-ish 32bit
>>systems and don't want to upgrade the hardware yet. To that, I would
>>say that hardware is likely the least of your costs in this equation.
>>In the smallest of shops, that may be closer to equal in terms of
>>costs. As you scale up and add features, hardware is almost always the
>>cheapest resource in the equation.
>>
>>Can you expand into why you think 64bit only would be a problem? I'd
>>like to at least understand this a bit better. If you need to, feel
>>free to drop the note off-line so we don't drift too far OT.
>>
>>Al
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Michael B. Smith"
>>>Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>To:
>>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>>>announcement
>>>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:56:36 -0500
>>>
>>>It was made in the Exchange product team meetings with the Exchange MVPs.
>>>
>>>I can assure you, our reaction was not positive. I think it is a
>>>serious mistake.
>>>
>>>M
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:03 AM
>>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>>>announcement
>>>
>>>
>>>Wow. I don't recall Muglia making that statement at the summit, I
>>>think
>>>
>>
>>
>>>he would have been beaten up pretty bad....
>>>
>>>
>>>"Muglia made several product announcements during his keynote address.
>>>
>>>As part of its commitment to 64-bit computing, Microsoft has been
>>>delivering products that are optimized for 64-bit, including the
>>>newly released SQL Server(tm) 2005, Visual Studio(r) 2005 and Virtual
>>>Server
>>>2005 R2. To help customers take full advantage of the power of 64-bit
>>>computing, products including Microsoft(r) Exchange Server "12,"
>>>Windows Compute Cluster Server 2003, Windows Server(tm) "Longhorn"
>>>Small Business Server, and Microsoft's infrastructure solution for
>>>midsize businesses, code-named "Centro," will be exclusively 64-bit
>>>and
>>>
>>
>>
>>>optimized for x64 hardware. In a future update release to Microsoft's
>>>upcoming Windows Server "Longhorn" operating system, code-named
>>>Windows
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Server "Longhorn" R2, customers will see the complete transition to
>>>64-bit-only hardware, while still benefiting from 32-bit and 64-bit
>>>application compatibility. For the highest-scale application and
>>>database workloads, Windows Server on 64-bit Itanium-based systems
>>>will
>>>
>>
>>
>>>continue to be the premier choice for customers for years to come."
>>>
>>>The LH SBS package is pretty funny too... Imagine going into all of
>>>those small companies and telling them they don't have a choice but
>>>to buy a new server when they want to get the new security enhancements.
>>>
>>>I hope MS decides to support K3 and Exchange K3 for some time. Though
>>>I
>>>
>>
>>
>>>am already seeing a huge reduced emphasis and making K3 work right now.
>>>
>>>Any good non-GNU message/collaboration apps out there? Something with
>>>maybe a BSD license?
>>>
>>> joe
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian
>>>Desmond
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:03 AM
>>>To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>>>announcement
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Where'd you find that?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Brian Desmond
>>>
>>>brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>c - 312.731.3132
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:33 AM
>>>To: exchange-2003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchange2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>>>ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Subject: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
>>>announcement
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This just in:
>>>
>>>"As some of you are attending IT Forum in Barcelona, I want to make
>>>sure those of you who are not get the latest updates. At IT Forum,
>>>Microsoft will announce broad support for 64 bit across many of its
>>>
>>product lines.
>>
>>>As part of that announcement we will be announcing that Exchange 12
>>>will be 64 bit only. This is a significant decision for us and it is
>>>one that we did not make lightly. Many of you and your customers may
>>>have questions about why Exchange 12 will be 64 bit only and the mail
>>>below provides some background on the factors that lead to this
>>>decision and also the benefits from 64 bit that we are seeing in our
>>>early dog food & TAP deployments."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Martin Tuip
>>>
>>>MVP Exchange
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>>List archive:
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>>List archive:
>>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>>
>>
>
>--
>Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
>http://www.threatcode.com
>
>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
>List archive:
>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| activedirsmaporg
Posts:0
| | 11/21/2005 5:04 AM |
| I can confirm, yes, you will only be able to deploy Exchange 12 on amd64
(well x64, i.e. including EMTWhatever) hardware.
Now, I must confess something ...
A bit over one and a half years ago (~Mar 2004, give or take a couple
months), there was this "Focus 64" campaign, posters showed up everwhere
"Focus 64 ... Shift to the power of 64-bit ...
Objects in mirror are closer than they appear." It was just some internal
propaganda to get the development teams to be thinking and taking into
consideration 64-bit ... there are always a few of these campaign's going
on ...
Around the same time or shortly before this Exchange was still asking if
we could add PAE/AWE support to ESE like SQL. At one point, I vaguely
remember yelling across the room, "PAE? PAE?!? Are you kidding me?! We
have 64-bit desktops today! PAE will be mueseums in five years!" (the
exact wording probably involved swear words). I also mentioned that PAE
is a horrible hack, it makes me nauseous. Hack up ESE because they didn't
want to port to 64-bits? Shortly after they were waffling again!!
Wondering if they could just make it run as a 32-bit app on 64-bit OSs,
large memory aware so they could go from the ~3GB they got today to the
3.9GB of address space a large aware app gets on a amd64 based Windows OS
(that'd be a 30% increase in available memory). They could get this if
they only ported the IFS driver to 64-bit, or removed it. BTW, the IFS
driver is what prevents running 32-bit Exch2k3 on 64-bit OSs. 64-bit OSs
require 64-bit drivers / kernel mode components. At which point I made a
clarifying comment to the effect of, "No, no, I want to see 48 GBs of ESE
buffer cache! Only a native 64-bit store.exe will do. Get off your ..."
(perhpas I felt more swear words were necessary, I don't remember)
Anyway, with all this debate on "what 64-bit support means", I just wasn't
100% convinced that Exchange was compelled enough ...
So I arranged with the guy in charge of the Focus 64 campaign to reserve
50 posters for the Exchange mailbox team's floor exclusively, and one
night I snuck over in the dead of night (or early early morning I think)
and plastered these posters up and down the mailbox team's hall, I put
64-bit posters in thier regular reserved War team room, on the back of the
dev manager's chair, and even on the back of the bathroom stall doors,
just so when they're really "concentrating", they'd be thinking 64-bit.
I mean what was I supposed to do !?, they were making JET Blue look
bad. We've servers 1 TB worth of databases attached, and only .09 to .12%
of DB buffer cache, and email is kind of weird load, kind of 4/5ths OLTP
and 1/5th DSS, and well basically Exchange is _starved_ for memory today.
JET had multiple 64-bit binaries (the Win2k DEC Alpha binary - Sept 1999
[last shipped in Beta 3, never made it to RTM], the ia64 binaries in Sept
2001, the amd64 binaries in Mar 2003). We had tested 64-bit Itanium DCs,
with on the order of 32 GBs of RAM, to great effectiveness for huge DIT
files.
Anyway, I'm not going to claim my persistent nagging of the mailbox team
swung the tide, I honestly think they would've come to the decision
naturally on thier own (it was the only real choice). But did walking by
a couple hall ways of posters make them _only_ Focus 64?? I personally
don't think so, but I've confessed, so I have a clear conciousness. :) If
you need someone to blame, you can blame me personally if you like ...
Overall ...
I'm quite happy, the Exchange team stepped up to the plate, and is going
to release IMO, the killer 64-bit app. They deserve accolades.
There are actuallly several details besides this one that make an inplace
upgrade a more difficult thing to do/support, and together these details
embolden the forced migration option. If you read the notes from people
at the IT Forum close enough, I saw at least 2 of the other reasons that
increase the difficulty of doing in place upgrades. We rigorously debate
these things, there are more aspects to the decision than has been
mentioned so far.
joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with 200 to 300
windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel mode
resource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatly
anticipating having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".
I had some comments on the cost debate, but I'll put that on another fork
of the thread ...
Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
ESE Developer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Rich Milburn wrote:
> Makes me wonder if MS is not betting at least some of the farm on the quick 64 bit transition that Gates is certain is going to happen. If anyone has the potential to influence that switch, MS has got it. The switch to 32 bit was overdue, so everyone realized the benefits and it happened fast. But we've currently got a memory model that will allow us to quite comfortably handle reading parts of programs and files and caching to disk - even though it's common knowledge that caching to disk, or reading the next parts of files, is a huge speed bottleneck. Memory price was a barrier before - who could afford 1GB of RAM?? But that barrier is diminishing, when you can buy a fully functional PC for a couple/few hundred bucks. What if I did editing, or ran some kind of server software, that could load itself, or its working space, or its database, entirely into memory?? With a 3GB per app current limit, it doesn't happen now, so it's hard to imagine what kind of functionality could be possible in that model. The question I'm curious about is what is Microsoft's reasoning behind doing it - is it because they are too lazy to program 2 platforms, because they are too lazy to write efficient code, or because there is a feature set they want to use that is only possible with the extended memory space? There are a lot of applications (uses) that are pretty tough to tackle because of the datasets they require (i.e. genetic algorithms/neural networking/predictive analysis) but those might become more commonplace with the address space to handle them - with multiple processors yes but also with a TB limit on physical RAM.
>
> Does all that help me read my list mail better? Probably not. At least not until I can set up rules that can research questions for me automatically and present me with a proven response I can sign and click send :)
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:47 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
>
> The first thing I thought of when I read the announcement that it was to
> test the waters and MS would recall it as a "the person spoke out of turn".
> Then I heard it was Muglia which shored it up quite bit. Now I am hearing
> more in dept info from various places and fully believe that MS is
> definitely intending to do this.
>
> Regardless of what MS or Intel or AMD does, I am not so sure I expect the
> death of 32 bit machines any time soon. They will just go to more lower end
> uses than running a big bad GUI OS. Even if AMD and Intel drop production
> completely, I expect you will see some Chinese/Korean Chip manufacturer
> cranking them out. If at the same price or the 32 bit was cheaper I would
> take the MP 32 bit system over a single processor 64 bit for a home system.
> I previously bought the 64 bit system to do some eventual testing versus
> thinking it was going to be so much better. I like 64 bit so much I am
> running a 32 bit OS on it. ;o) I expect at some point someone will complain
> that I need to make my tools 64 bit. I don't expect it to happen whole hog
> or probably even at all for quite some time.
>
> Without all of the whizbang GUI stuff, 32 bit is quite fine for many many
> many and let me just say probably most applications. It would be for even
> longer though the push is to go 64 bit because some apps have hit ceilings
> in easy use of the memory they need. 64 bit is about memory and available
> address space for resource allocation, etc. There are extended memory
> schemes available for 32 bit just like there were for 16 bit and 8 bit. They
> are a pain to code around though and no one likes to do it. When we go to
> 128 bit procs it will be the same issue, the apps are too fat to easily fit
> in the memory space we have available at the time. I wouldn't even be close
> to being stupid enough to say we won't ever need 128 bit...
>
> Who was it that allegedly said "640KB ought to enough for anybody."?
>
>
> For pure speed, multiprocessing, not 64 bit, is where we are and need to be
> going. That also requires extensive work in the coding side of things
> because code not properly written for MP purposes can perform very badly in
> MP machines. This involved coding techniqus and smart compilers that can
> generate good MP code. I have seen some in house apps in previous jobs that
> failed in a stellar fashion once loaded onto production MP servers while the
> test environment was entirely single processor. I expect there are folks in
> software companies who have experienced the same with their apps. I also
> expect we will have fun with some 32 bit apps that perform in quite unique
> ways under 64 bit. Shouldn't happen, but lots of things that shouldn't
> happen, do. That is just the way this stuff works or else we would all be
> out of jobs.
>
>
> joe
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:19 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
>
> I agree with you. This is one stupid Ώ] business decision that will
> ultimately hurt E12 adoption. We reached the plateau of 5.5 to E2K3 mass
> migration a long time ago. Most people still on 5.5 are waiting to see "the
> Next Thing" and we can't seem to move them from their standoffish position.
> Erecting a roadblock at this point (in the name of 64-bit innovation) will
> create a huge disincentive to the adoption of this "Next Thing". The
> customers have enough reason to not want to adopt new technologies "just
> because......". Now MS is giving them more ammunition to not even bother.
>
> I do not know what this was predicated on. Perhaps MS is going to pressure
> the OEM into abandoning 32-bit machines. Perhaps they will succeed, perhaps
> not. My hope is that this is merely a feeler from MS to gauge the industry's
> reaction to the plan. I am guessing somewhere in someone's back pocket is a
> card that reads "Hehehe....just kidding". If those guesses are wrong, then
> let me hazard one more guess - MS is not REALLY interested in getting a lot
> of people onto E12 because E12 is just a transitional platform (like WinME)
> and will be abandoned as soon as it escapes from the Redmond lab.
>
> OK, maybe I'm seriously wrong on all my guesses. In which case, I would have
> to conclude that someone somewhere is seriously deluded. I don't see a lot
> of customers clamoring for 64-bit. Not yesterday, not today, and 95% of the
> clients I interface with don't have it in their 2-year plans. Drawing an
> imaginary line and proclaiming "64-bit or die" will only lead to one outcome
> - a premature death for all the hard work so far invested in E12. In the
> absence of death, MS will surely run into the adoption roadblock ΐ] they
> are currently contending with in the XP space - people see no need to move
> off of Win2K (thank you very much), especially now that Vista is looming
> large.
>
> Ώ] I guess one of the perks of being a partial observer is being able to
> call MS decisions "stupid"
> ΐ] Unlike a lot of people, I get paid to push MS technologies, so I have a
> vested interested in getting maximum adoptions.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.readymaids.com - we know IT
> www.akomolafe.com
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of joe
> Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 6:21 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
>
>
>
> They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a platform,
> this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some nasty functional
> problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha and the PowerPC. They
> just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet. You still hear occasional
> complaints about those being dropped though you hear a lot more of "what are
> those platforms".
>
> It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange Dev
> must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64 bit so that
> is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and design decisions
> would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems as well, probably help
> considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have helped the DSACCESS
> problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security design and AD integration.
> Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix much of
> anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they are able to use
> the more and more memory that you throw at it without having to use the
> complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit. Some might call that
> covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o)
>
> Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy bigger/faster
> hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older version of Windows to
> run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be amazing how fast it is. The
> hardware companies instead of bitching at MS should be paying them dividends
> and praising them for driving the hardware industry.
>
> Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going .NET....
>
>
> joe
>
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA
> aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
>
> We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003.
>
> We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to you
> guys?
>
> Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember we're
> just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007.... SBS after
> that.
>
> I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to drop
> backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better security.
> So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of 64
> bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again, isn't it?
>
> More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms are
> looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and break it.
>
> 2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And
> when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs because
> of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks.
>
> Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think?
>
> Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to go...yeah
> ...that they need to do.
>
> Tomasz Onyszko wrote:
> > joe wrote:
> >> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn.
> >>
> >> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12.
> >
> > Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned
> > specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this announcement
> > too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with exchange 12 which
> > will be released in relatively short time.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> http://www.threatcode.com
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> -------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE------- PRIVILEGED /
> CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message or any attachments.
> This information is strictly confidential and may be subject to attorney-client
> privilege. This message is intended only for the use of the named addressee. If
> you are not the intended recipient of this message, unauthorized forwarding,
> printing, copying, distribution, or using such information is strictly
> prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this in error, you should
> kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail and immediately destroy this message.
> Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law.
> Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the right to monitor and review the
> content of all messages sent to and from this e-mail address. Messages sent to
> or from this e-mail address may be stored on the Applebee's International, Inc.
> e-mail system.
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| activedirsmaporg
Posts:0
| | 11/21/2005 7:07 AM |
| Cost debate ...
I've heard that on big Exchange servers that by a factor of 4 or 5 to 1,
the cost is mostly spent on big disk hardware (read as SAN). It is the
IOPS that cost. With a 4x drop in IOPS required, the same hardware will
be usable for more users/servers. Clearly the people who get the rub is
the medium and small businesses ...
Well, even the medium business may have some savings, in that if they're
on the small-ish side of medium business, they will have the new Centro
bundles, that I think save on software costs. And if on the larger end,
they're probably bursting at thier disk subsystems seams, they may not
have to move to a SAN so soon, or their SAN may last them alot longer.
With everything they pack on a small business server, they're probably
overloaded already, and _esp_ tight in kernel memory address space, I'm
surprised they don't hit NPP exhaustion all the time. It is likely this
will be a blessing in disguise, with 64-bit address space, and 8 GBs of
memory, those servers will be happier servers.
Engh, clearly it is _not_ the most ideal, but I don't think it will be too
bad. People have been pointing out, alot of people are unknowningly
buying the right hardware today. I appologize to the small business
crowd, when upgrading, please plan on buying a new server one to three
years from now.
Brian, do you mind sharing of the 400k you spent, what proportion was disk
hardware that could be transistioned?
Brian, if it's difficult to repurpose hardware, I suggest you inform the
org, that you'll be working on "tuning the hardware config of those old
Exch servers in your office, until they figure out where they want you to
actually repurpose them". That should give you some nice desktop
development box for at least a few years. ;)
Unfortunately, there are other costs besides new hardware. :P For instance
is any of the backup software, or the anti-virus software, or possibly
your monitoring agents going to be native 64-bit? Some of them may even
need to be to run on 64-bit servers. Not to mention the cost (in time) of
getting an admin to perform migration, over a more silent, just upgrade
the binaries type upgrade. Remember a month of an admins time is a
company committing between 5k and 15k to that effort.
All this gets weighed.
On the other side of the sacle, however, is that in place upgrades,
prevent the development team from making the most drastic changes, because
the code must be made to either upgrade the database (often intractable)
or have two code paths to handle both formats (often unsupportable long
term). I don't think there are actually too many people who would trade
the 4x IOPS savings, for in-place upgrade feature.
Also in some ways moving to 64-bit wholesale, actually improves the story
for all those other bits of ancillary software, because vendors won't let
the 64-bit support linger.
Engh, clearly it is _not_ the most ideal, but I don't think it will be a
terrible burden. People have been pointing out, alot of people are
unknowningly buying the right hardware today. I appologize to the small
business crowd, when upgrading, please plan on buying a new server one to
three years from now.
Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
ESE Developer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Brian Desmond wrote:
> I wish it as that easy. Dysfunctional silo'ed government organizations make
> simple things like moving hardware to a new task a monumental task.
> Especially when there are use restrictions on funds used to purchase things.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
> brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> c - 312.731.3132
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tony Murray
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:19 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
>
> Most organisations (including yours perhaps?) could plan to redeploy
> current Exchange hardware elsewhere if it's not quite end-of-life by the
> time they're ready to deploy E12. Not all systems will have the 64 bit
> requirement in the time frame we are talking about, so you are likely to
> have some flexibility if you have other servers that you need to
> hardware refresh in the meantime.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Tony
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
> Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2005 2:33 p.m.
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> I see this environment lasting pas the E12 timeline. It has a ton of
> room to
> grow in all aspects of the hardware. This seems like the sort of thing
> that
> they needed to have announced a while ago.
>
> Thanks,
> Brian Desmond
> brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> c - 312.731.3132
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:08 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> How long before you expect to upgrade? And how does that compare with
> the
> hardware lifecycle?
>
> If you find a way to future proof anything in this business, please let
> the
> rest of us know. :)
>
> As for Joe's question: are there other packages available? Yep. But as
>
> with anything it depends on what you want to accomplish and your
> tolerance
> for changes. One option might be the open source version of
> http://www.zimbra.com/products/index.html which implements what looks to
> be
> a popular new path - AJAX.
>
> There are other open source projects out there as well, but sometimes
> you
> really do get what you pay for.
>
> -ajm
>
>
> >From: "Brian Desmond"
> >Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To:
> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
> >Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:00:26 -0500
> >
> >Neither do I. We just put in a 400K dollar Exchange 2003 environment
> like
> >18
> >months ago. I don't think the client is going to be thrilled to hear
> that
> >was all a waste as it will only run one version of Exchange.
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Brian Desmond
> >
> > brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >c - 312.731.3132
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:03 AM
> >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
> >
> >
> >
> >Wow. I don't recall Muglia making that statement at the summit, I think
> he
> >would have been beaten up pretty bad....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >"Muglia made several product announcements during his keynote address.
> >
> >
> >
> >As part of its commitment to 64-bit computing, Microsoft has been
> >delivering
> >products that are optimized for 64-bit, including the newly released
> SQL
> >ServerT 2005, Visual StudioR 2005 and Virtual Server 2005 R2. To help
> >customers take full advantage of the power of 64-bit computing,
> products
> >including MicrosoftR Exchange Server "12," Windows Compute Cluster
> Server
> >2003, Windows ServerT "Longhorn" Small Business Server, and Microsoft's
> >infrastructure solution for midsize businesses, code-named "Centro,"
> will
> >be
> >exclusively 64-bit and optimized for x64 hardware. In a future update
> >release to Microsoft's upcoming Windows Server "Longhorn" operating
> system,
> >code-named Windows Server "Longhorn" R2, customers will see the
> complete
> >transition to 64-bit-only hardware, while still benefiting from 32-bit
> and
> >64-bit application compatibility. For the highest-scale application and
> >database workloads, Windows Server on 64-bit Itanium-based systems will
> >continue to be the premier choice for customers for years to come."
> >
> >
> >
> >The LH SBS package is pretty funny too... Imagine going into all of
> those
> >small companies and telling them they don't have a choice but to buy a
> new
> >server when they want to get the new security enhancements.
> >
> >
> >
> >I hope MS decides to support K3 and Exchange K3 for some time. Though I
> am
> >already seeing a huge reduced emphasis and making K3 work right now.
> >
> >
> >
> >Any good non-GNU message/collaboration apps out there? Something with
> maybe
> >a BSD license?
> >
> >
> >
> > joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:03 AM
> >To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
> >
> >Where'd you find that?
> >
> >
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Brian Desmond
> >
> > brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> >
> >c - 312.731.3132
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:33 AM
> >To: exchange-2003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchange2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
> >
> >
> >
> >This just in:
> >
> >"As some of you are attending IT Forum in Barcelona, I want to make
> sure
> >those of you who are not get the latest updates. At IT Forum, Microsoft
>
> >will
> >announce broad support for 64 bit across many of its product lines. As
> part
> >of that announcement we will be announcing that Exchange 12 will be 64
> bit
> >only. This is a significant decision for us and it is one that we did
> not
> >make lightly. Many of you and your customers may have questions about
> why
> >Exchange 12 will be 64 bit only and the mail below provides some
> background
> >on the factors that lead to this decision and also the benefits from 64
> bit
> >that we are seeing in our early dog food & TAP deployments."
> >
> >
> >
> >Martin Tuip
> >
> >MVP Exchange
> >
>
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
> This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are
> not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me
> immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this
> communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that
> this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes
> of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| sbradcpa
Posts:496
| | 11/21/2005 7:42 AM |
| Brett hasn't seen my box. :-)
But honestly there are times in SBSland that we underspec the RAM and
overspec the duties.
Brett Shirley wrote:
Cost debate ...
I've heard that on big Exchange servers that by a factor of 4 or 5 to 1,
the cost is mostly spent on big disk hardware (read as SAN). It is the
IOPS that cost. With a 4x drop in IOPS required, the same hardware will
be usable for more users/servers. Clearly the people who get the rub is
the medium and small businesses ...
Well, even the medium business may have some savings, in that if they're
on the small-ish side of medium business, they will have the new Centro
bundles, that I think save on software costs. And if on the larger end,
they're probably bursting at thier disk subsystems seams, they may not
have to move to a SAN so soon, or their SAN may last them alot longer.
With everything they pack on a small business server, they're probably
overloaded already, and _esp_ tight in kernel memory address space, I'm
surprised they don't hit NPP exhaustion all the time. It is likely this
will be a blessing in disguise, with 64-bit address space, and 8 GBs of
memory, those servers will be happier servers.
Engh, clearly it is _not_ the most ideal, but I don't think it will be too
bad. People have been pointing out, alot of people are unknowningly
buying the right hardware today. I appologize to the small business
crowd, when upgrading, please plan on buying a new server one to three
years from now.
Brian, do you mind sharing of the 400k you spent, what proportion was disk
hardware that could be transistioned?
Brian, if it's difficult to repurpose hardware, I suggest you inform the
org, that you'll be working on "tuning the hardware config of those old
Exch servers in your office, until they figure out where they want you to
actually repurpose them". That should give you some nice desktop
development box for at least a few years. ;)
Unfortunately, there are other costs besides new hardware. :P For instance
is any of the backup software, or the anti-virus software, or possibly
your monitoring agents going to be native 64-bit? Some of them may even
need to be to run on 64-bit servers. Not to mention the cost (in time) of
getting an admin to perform migration, over a more silent, just upgrade
the binaries type upgrade. Remember a month of an admins time is a
company committing between 5k and 15k to that effort.
All this gets weighed.
On the other side of the sacle, however, is that in place upgrades,
prevent the development team from making the most drastic changes, because
the code must be made to either upgrade the database (often intractable)
or have two code paths to handle both formats (often unsupportable long
term). I don't think there are actually too many people who would trade
the 4x IOPS savings, for in-place upgrade feature.
Also in some ways moving to 64-bit wholesale, actually improves the story
for all those other bits of ancillary software, because vendors won't let
the 64-bit support linger.
Engh, clearly it is _not_ the most ideal, but I don't think it will be a
terrible burden. People have been pointing out, alot of people are
unknowningly buying the right hardware today. I appologize to the small
business crowd, when upgrading, please plan on buying a new server one to
three years from now.
Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
ESE Developer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Brian Desmond wrote:
I wish it as that easy. Dysfunctional silo'ed government organizations make
simple things like moving hardware to a new task a monumental task.
Especially when there are use restrictions on funds used to purchase things.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tony Murray
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:19 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
Most organisations (including yours perhaps?) could plan to redeploy
current Exchange hardware elsewhere if it's not quite end-of-life by the
time they're ready to deploy E12. Not all systems will have the 64 bit
requirement in the time frame we are talking about, so you are likely to
have some flexibility if you have other servers that you need to
hardware refresh in the meantime.
Just a thought.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2005 2:33 p.m.
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
announcement
I see this environment lasting pas the E12 timeline. It has a ton of
room to
grow in all aspects of the hardware. This seems like the sort of thing
that
they needed to have announced a while ago.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 12:08 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
announcement
How long before you expect to upgrade? And how does that compare with
the
hardware lifecycle?
If you find a way to future proof anything in this business, please let
the
rest of us know. :)
As for Joe's question: are there other packages available? Yep. But as
with anything it depends on what you want to accomplish and your
tolerance
for changes. One option might be the open source version of
http://www.zimbra.com/products/index.html which implements what looks to
be
a popular new path - AJAX.
There are other open source projects out there as well, but sometimes
you
really do get what you pay for.
-ajm
From: "Brian Desmond"
Reply-To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
announcement
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:00:26 -0500
Neither do I. We just put in a 400K dollar Exchange 2003 environment
like
18
months ago. I don't think the client is going to be thrilled to hear
that
was all a waste as it will only run one version of Exchange.
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
_____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 10:03 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
announcement
Wow. I don't recall Muglia making that statement at the summit, I think
he
would have been beaten up pretty bad....
"Muglia made several product announcements during his keynote address.
As part of its commitment to 64-bit computing, Microsoft has been
delivering
products that are optimized for 64-bit, including the newly released
SQL
ServerT 2005, Visual StudioR 2005 and Virtual Server 2005 R2. To help
customers take full advantage of the power of 64-bit computing,
products
including MicrosoftR Exchange Server "12," Windows Compute Cluster
Server
2003, Windows ServerT "Longhorn" Small Business Server, and Microsoft's
infrastructure solution for midsize businesses, code-named "Centro,"
will
be
exclusively 64-bit and optimized for x64 hardware. In a future update
release to Microsoft's upcoming Windows Server "Longhorn" operating
system,
code-named Windows Server "Longhorn" R2, customers will see the
complete
transition to 64-bit-only hardware, while still benefiting from 32-bit
and
64-bit application compatibility. For the highest-scale application and
database workloads, Windows Server on 64-bit Itanium-based systems will
continue to be the premier choice for customers for years to come."
The LH SBS package is pretty funny too... Imagine going into all of
those
small companies and telling them they don't have a choice but to buy a
new
server when they want to get the new security enhancements.
I hope MS decides to support K3 and Exchange K3 for some time. Though I
am
already seeing a huge reduced emphasis and making K3 work right now.
Any good non-GNU message/collaboration apps out there? Something with
maybe
a BSD license?
joe
_____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brian Desmond
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 9:03 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
announcement
Where'd you find that?
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c - 312.731.3132
_____
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Martin Tuip
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 3:33 AM
To: exchange-2003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; exchange2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
This just in:
"As some of you are attending IT Forum in Barcelona, I want to make
sure
those of you who are not get the latest updates. At IT Forum, Microsoft
will
announce broad support for 64 bit across many of its product lines. As
part
of that announcement we will be announcing that Exchange 12 will be 64
bit
only. This is a significant decision for us and it is one that we did
not
make lightly. Many of you and your customers may have questions about
why
Exchange 12 will be 64 bit only and the mail below provides some
background
on the factors that lead to this decision and also the benefits from 64
bit
that we are seeing in our early dog food & TAP deployments."
Martin Tuip
MVP Exchange
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive:
http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
This communication, including any attachments, is confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient, you should not read it - please contact me
immediately, destroy it, and do not copy or use any part of this
communication or disclose anything about it. Thank you. Please note that
this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes
of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
--
Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
http://www.threatcode.com
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:824
| | 11/22/2005 6:21 AM |
| I believe the store (ESE) caching is only about 1GB. The AD Caching depends
on version, but E2K had 50MB total cache split evenly between user info and
config info , E2K3 I think has maybe 200MB of cache with most of that going
to user info.
I agree that the cut from 32 bit is too soon. I think that a lot could be
done with the 32 bit version to make it great for smaller deployments such
as caching mods and ESE database configurations (such as page sizing).
Alternatively, offer a different product for smaller orgs. How much is in
the main product that has no bearing for small orgs? Or even in many or most
orgs? Or maybe, to get to Enterprise level with certain new capabilities for
scaling you have to use 64 bit maybe? Then watch to see how many deploy 64
versus 32 PLUS get good experience of the 64 bit version without impacting
everyone. Smarter use of rule processing. Smarter AD use. Do a trace of an
Exchange server talking to AD sometime, it is unlikely that you won't say
WTF when watching the traffic if you look at the duplication of queries
within a single minute let alone within 10 or 20 or 30 minutes. Maybe use a
local disk based caching of AD info if the AD isn't local? That helps cut
down on network latency and impact from busy GCs.
Something I said on an offline thread about my previous post was a
modularized version would be nice, you can say what pieces you want in there
so if you don't say want Server side rules or tasks or IM or or do, you can
control it going in there. Maybe allow someone to write their own
categorizor ground up to plug in that is opitimized for them or certain
types of uses.
Generic software that works for everyone tends to have an issue of not being
great for anyone.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:21 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I respectfully disagree. Exchange doesn't have a large memory footprint
because of code but because of caching, which is necessary to improve
performance. I've never disagreed with the technical merit of a 64-bit
Exchange for large mailbox servers, but I think that the decision to drop
32-bit is, marketing-wise, one release too early.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!?
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:39 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
> joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with 200 to
> 300 windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel
> mode resource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatly
> anticipating having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".
Brett I would never consider you a standard user, heck most people won't hit
30 windows open at once let alone hundreds unless they accidently hit CTRL-A
and Enter in explorer or outlook or something else that will launch new
windows. At one point for a company I had to write a special mailslot app
for receiving NET SEND messages on Win9x machines because the users would
close out the Win Popup app because they didn't like seeing something they
weren't immediately working on on the taskbar. It wasn't "clean" to them.
I myself probably top out at about 80-90 windows and that is if I don't
reboot for a couple of months and leave things open until I "get back to
them" and I consider myself to be a pretty "avid" user. On the plus side,
about 15-20 of those windows will be CMD Prompt but they are 9999 lines by
180 columns. The rest are a mixture of notepad, messenger, excel, IE, FF,
Outlook messages, TS, VPC, VMWare, and explorer windows. At the moment, I
have maybe 30 windows open but I rebooted today.
I think I understand why MS wants to go to 64 bit only. But I see it simply
as the tide turning from not thinking Enterprise to seemingly thinking all
enterprise so they can "scale" but mostly because they have too much fat to
fit in the 32 bit pants anymore for any load of any size that is carried.
Even an Exchange server not doing anything can practically be falling over
itself. SBS for example would do better with a lighter weight cleaner
messaging environment, not one that runs better because it can now use 8GB
of RAM. I recall running a time share system with dumb terminals on a
machine with 1MB of RAM that served 40 people consecutively (120 total
throughout the day), 16 bits, 18Mhz, and maybe 8MB of disk space. I realize
that times have changed but email and calendaring and file sharing and
printing all worked great, we had all of the stuff I use in Exchange, DLs,
meetings, recurring meetings, etc.
The one thing that Windows and the PC have encouraged is fat inefficient
coding. For quite a while the processor and disk/RAM increases helped it
along at the desktop but stuff hasn't moved quite as well at the server.
Moving away from a desktop OS at the server and desktop type apps at the
server could help, I don't know though I am just a tool writer. I am looking
forward to some serious improvements with Server Core though it seems the
traditionally fat apps probably won't run on it anyway because they need the
strawberry shortcake and chocolate pudding and cheesecake. Exchange is
slowly growing in hardware requirements to require the size of hardware it
was supposed to replace when replacing big fat mini and mainframe systems
but still doesn't perform as well. Note I am not saying everything from MS
is like this, but I am willing to say Exchange certainly is.
The only part of Exchange I can really talk about technically is the use of
AD based on traces, etc and it, overall, is poor. It is getting better, but
there has been and still is some pretty bad use there. I haven't had a
single session of tracing Exchange traffic to AD that I didn't at some point
say, WTF... There is no reason to assume that the only inefficiencies are
there. While it is possible all of the bad coding is strictly in the use of
AD, I would tend to not assume that. On top of that I have had some blog
conversations with some Exchange Dev folks and it sounds like fat is the
order for the day for the new management pieces with Monad too and they
didn't seem to have an inkling of what I was trying to point out about being
too fat. The bad thing is that it is one of, if not the best PC based
messaging/calendaring system out there. Some people seem to mistake that for
meaning it is good. Being the best doesn't make something good, it just
makes it better than the other crap. I would seriously love if someone else
would come out with something better, if only to make Exchange button down
and work hard at being really good. Look at what FF did for IE development.
Breathed whole new life into that product.
On the expensive disk. I don't see people who spend the money on the
expensive disk really cutting back on it just because MS say they can now
with E12. The large companies still aren't going to trust the cheaper disk
and will stick with configuring Exchange the way they have for some time,
definitely at first, maybe less as time goes on if it proves itself out. I
also don't expect people to scale up big time on E12 again at least
initially, the same scaling promises came out for E2K and people put 5000
people on a server and tended to find out it wasn't a good thing unless they
had very small mailboxes and nothing else going on (no DLs, no serious
searching, etc). They cut back to 4000 and then 3000 and then 2000 and some
all the way back into sub-1000 because of "power" users. The whole time,
there is no strong identification of WHAT was puking out the perf. You might
get DSACCESS counters pointing at an AD that is practically idling and two
parts of MS both saying their piece (AD and Exchange) is fine by every test
they know of except Exchange perf sucks. So you spend months chopping down
number of users and finding any slightly different user to further
subclassify users to break them out into even smaller groups.
Personally, most places put up with the speed of Exchange, none seem to brag
about how fast it is. I think most will welcome it going faster if it
happens to beat up the disks less and you get more throughput because of
less IOPS. The best thing done for the speed of Exchange in any recent times
that I recall is making Outlook run in cached mode so the users don't notice
the servers slobbering on themselves as often. The servers perform the same,
just users are less likely to notice.
I would love to see E12 be this amazing app but we can't honestly have those
conversations until say about 2009 once we have sat down and started to
figure out what it is doing and where it breaks at. I would have loved for
E2K3 to have been that amazing app or even E2K. Mostly we have seen, let's
change that and see how it works. Both in design/dev as well as daily
support. Personally I don't care what they do, as long as theypick something
and stick with it. I am getting a trifle annoyed with finding a bug and
trying to report it and being fought with concerning it actually being a
problem and then getting to the end to hear, we aren't doing that in the new
version so we don't care about it anyway or to put it another way, the new
version fixes everything.
Overall I see 64 bit to be the new pair of pants for Exchange simply because
it is too fat to fit in 32 bit pants even or maybe especially if the use is
extremely light say like 10-15 users.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:01 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I can confirm, yes, you will only be able to deploy Exchange 12 on amd64
(well x64, i.e. including EMTWhatever) hardware.
Now, I must confess something ...
A bit over one and a half years ago (~Mar 2004, give or take a couple
months), there was this "Focus 64" campaign, posters showed up everwhere
"Focus 64 ... Shift to the power of 64-bit ... Objects in
mirror are closer than they appear." It was just some internal propaganda
to get the development teams to be thinking and taking into consideration
64-bit ... there are always a few of these campaign's going on ...
Around the same time or shortly before this Exchange was still asking if we
could add PAE/AWE support to ESE like SQL. At one point, I vaguely remember
yelling across the room, "PAE? PAE?!? Are you kidding me?! We have 64-bit
desktops today! PAE will be mueseums in five years!" (the exact wording
probably involved swear words). I also mentioned that PAE is a horrible
hack, it makes me nauseous. Hack up ESE because they didn't want to port to
64-bits? Shortly after they were waffling again!!
Wondering if they could just make it run as a 32-bit app on 64-bit OSs,
large memory aware so they could go from the ~3GB they got today to the
3.9GB of address space a large aware app gets on a amd64 based Windows OS
(that'd be a 30% increase in available memory). They could get this if they
only ported the IFS driver to 64-bit, or removed it. BTW, the IFS driver is
what prevents running 32-bit Exch2k3 on 64-bit OSs. 64-bit OSs require
64-bit drivers / kernel mode components. At which point I made a clarifying
comment to the effect of, "No, no, I want to see 48 GBs of ESE buffer cache!
Only a native 64-bit store.exe will do. Get off your ..."
(perhpas I felt more swear words were necessary, I don't remember) Anyway,
with all this debate on "what 64-bit support means", I just wasn't 100%
convinced that Exchange was compelled enough ...
So I arranged with the guy in charge of the Focus 64 campaign to reserve 50
posters for the Exchange mailbox team's floor exclusively, and one night I
snuck over in the dead of night (or early early morning I think) and
plastered these posters up and down the mailbox team's hall, I put 64-bit
posters in thier regular reserved War team room, on the back of the dev
manager's chair, and even on the back of the bathroom stall doors, just so
when they're really "concentrating", they'd be thinking 64-bit.
I mean what was I supposed to do !?, they were making JET Blue look
bad. We've servers 1 TB worth of databases attached, and only .09 to .12%
of DB buffer cache, and email is kind of weird load, kind of 4/5ths OLTP and
1/5th DSS, and well basically Exchange is _starved_ for memory today.
JET had multiple 64-bit binaries (the Win2k DEC Alpha binary - Sept 1999
[last shipped in Beta 3, never made it to RTM], the ia64 binaries in Sept
2001, the amd64 binaries in Mar 2003). We had tested 64-bit Itanium DCs,
with on the order of 32 GBs of RAM, to great effectiveness for huge DIT
files.
Anyway, I'm not going to claim my persistent nagging of the mailbox team
swung the tide, I honestly think they would've come to the decision
naturally on thier own (it was the only real choice). But did walking by a
couple hall ways of posters make them _only_ Focus 64?? I personally don't
think so, but I've confessed, so I have a clear conciousness. :) If you need
someone to blame, you can blame me personally if you like ...
Overall ...
I'm quite happy, the Exchange team stepped up to the plate, and is going to
release IMO, the killer 64-bit app. They deserve accolades.
There are actuallly several details besides this one that make an inplace
upgrade a more difficult thing to do/support, and together these details
embolden the forced migration option. If you read the notes from people at
the IT Forum close enough, I saw at least 2 of the other reasons that
increase the difficulty of doing in place upgrades. We rigorously debate
these things, there are more aspects to the decision than has been mentioned
so far.
joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with 200 to 300
windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel mode
resource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatly anticipating
having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".
I had some comments on the cost debate, but I'll put that on another fork of
the thread ...
Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
ESE Developer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Rich Milburn wrote:
> Makes me wonder if MS is not betting at least some of the farm on the
quick 64 bit transition that Gates is certain is going to happen. If anyone
has the potential to influence that switch, MS has got it. The switch to 32
bit was overdue, so everyone realized the benefits and it happened fast.
But we've currently got a memory model that will allow us to quite
comfortably handle reading parts of programs and files and caching to disk -
even though it's common knowledge that caching to disk, or reading the next
parts of files, is a huge speed bottleneck. Memory price was a barrier
before - who could afford 1GB of RAM?? But that barrier is diminishing, when
you can buy a fully functional PC for a couple/few hundred bucks. What if I
did editing, or ran some kind of server software, that could load itself, or
its working space, or its database, entirely into memory?? With a 3GB per
app current limit, it doesn't happen now, so it's hard to imagine what kind
of functionality could be possible in that model. The question I'm curious
about is what is Microsoft's reasoning behind doing it - is it because they
are too lazy to program 2 platforms, because they are too lazy to write
efficient code, or because there is a feature set they want to use that is
only possible with the extended memory space? There are a lot of
applications (uses) that are pretty tough to tackle because of the datasets
they require (i.e. genetic algorithms/neural networking/predictive analysis)
but those might become more commonplace with the address space to handle
them - with multiple processors yes but also with a TB limit on physical
RAM.
>
> Does all that help me read my list mail better? Probably not. At
> least not until I can set up rules that can research questions for me
> automatically and present me with a proven response I can sign and
> click send :)
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:47 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> The first thing I thought of when I read the announcement that it was
> to test the waters and MS would recall it as a "the person spoke out
> of
turn".
> Then I heard it was Muglia which shored it up quite bit. Now I am
> hearing more in dept info from various places and fully believe that
> MS is definitely intending to do this.
>
> Regardless of what MS or Intel or AMD does, I am not so sure I expect
> the death of 32 bit machines any time soon. They will just go to more
> lower end uses than running a big bad GUI OS. Even if AMD and Intel
> drop production completely, I expect you will see some Chinese/Korean
> Chip manufacturer cranking them out. If at the same price or the 32
> bit was cheaper I would take the MP 32 bit system over a single
> processor
64 bit for a home system.
> I previously bought the 64 bit system to do some eventual testing
> versus thinking it was going to be so much better. I like 64 bit so
> much I am running a 32 bit OS on it. ;o) I expect at some point
> someone will complain that I need to make my tools 64 bit. I don't
> expect it to happen whole hog or probably even at all for quite some time.
>
> Without all of the whizbang GUI stuff, 32 bit is quite fine for many
> many many and let me just say probably most applications. It would be
> for even longer though the push is to go 64 bit because some apps have
> hit ceilings in easy use of the memory they need. 64 bit is about
> memory and available address space for resource allocation, etc. There
> are extended memory schemes available for 32 bit just like there were
> for 16 bit and 8 bit. They are a pain to code around though and no one
> likes to do it. When we go to
> 128 bit procs it will be the same issue, the apps are too fat to
> easily fit in the memory space we have available at the time. I
> wouldn't even be close to being stupid enough to say we won't ever
> need
128 bit...
>
> Who was it that allegedly said "640KB ought to enough for anybody."?
>
>
> For pure speed, multiprocessing, not 64 bit, is where we are and need
> to be going. That also requires extensive work in the coding side of
> things because code not properly written for MP purposes can perform
> very badly in MP machines. This involved coding techniqus and smart
> compilers that can generate good MP code. I have seen some in house
> apps in previous jobs that failed in a stellar fashion once loaded
> onto production MP servers while the test environment was entirely
> single processor. I expect there are folks in software companies who
> have experienced the same with their apps. I also expect we will have
> fun with some 32 bit apps that perform in quite unique ways under 64
> bit. Shouldn't happen, but lots of things that shouldn't happen, do.
> That is just the way this stuff works or else we would all be out of jobs.
>
>
> joe
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:19 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> I agree with you. This is one stupid Ώ] business decision that will
> ultimately hurt E12 adoption. We reached the plateau of 5.5 to E2K3
> mass migration a long time ago. Most people still on 5.5 are waiting
> to see "the Next Thing" and we can't seem to move them from their
standoffish position.
> Erecting a roadblock at this point (in the name of 64-bit innovation)
> will create a huge disincentive to the adoption of this "Next Thing".
> The customers have enough reason to not want to adopt new technologies
> "just because......". Now MS is giving them more ammunition to not
> even
bother.
>
> I do not know what this was predicated on. Perhaps MS is going to
> pressure the OEM into abandoning 32-bit machines. Perhaps they will
> succeed, perhaps not. My hope is that this is merely a feeler from MS
> to gauge the industry's reaction to the plan. I am guessing somewhere
> in someone's back pocket is a card that reads "Hehehe....just
> kidding". If those guesses are wrong, then let me hazard one more
> guess - MS is not REALLY interested in getting a lot of people onto
> E12 because E12 is just a transitional platform (like WinME) and will
> be
abandoned as soon as it escapes from the Redmond lab.
>
> OK, maybe I'm seriously wrong on all my guesses. In which case, I
> would have to conclude that someone somewhere is seriously deluded. I
> don't see a lot of customers clamoring for 64-bit. Not yesterday, not
> today, and 95% of the clients I interface with don't have it in their
> 2-year plans. Drawing an imaginary line and proclaiming "64-bit or
> die" will only lead to one outcome
> - a premature death for all the hard work so far invested in E12. In
> the absence of death, MS will surely run into the adoption roadblock
> ΐ] they are currently contending with in the XP space - people see no
> need to move off of Win2K (thank you very much), especially now that
> Vista is looming large.
>
> Ώ] I guess one of the perks of being a partial observer is being able
> to call MS decisions "stupid"
> ΐ] Unlike a lot of people, I get paid to push MS technologies, so I
> have a vested interested in getting maximum adoptions.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.readymaids.com - we know IT
> www.akomolafe.com
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of joe
> Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 6:21 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
>
>
> They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a
> platform, this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some
> nasty functional problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha
> and the PowerPC. They just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet.
> You still hear occasional complaints about those being dropped though
> you hear a lot more of "what are those platforms".
>
> It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange
> Dev must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64
> bit so that is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and
> design decisions would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems
> as well, probably help considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have
> helped the DSACCESS problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security
> design
and AD integration.
> Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix
> much of anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they
> are able to use the more and more memory that you throw at it without
> having to use the complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit.
> Some might call that covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o)
>
> Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy
> bigger/faster hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older
> version of Windows to run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be
> amazing how fast it is. The hardware companies instead of bitching at
> MS should be paying them dividends and praising them for driving the
hardware industry.
>
> Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going
.NET....
>
>
> joe
>
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan
> Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003.
>
> We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to
> you guys?
>
> Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember
> we're just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007....
> SBS after that.
>
> I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to
> drop backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better
security.
> So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of
> 64 bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again,
> isn't
it?
>
> More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms
> are looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and
> break
it.
>
> 2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And
> when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs
> because of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks.
>
> Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think?
>
> Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to
> go...yeah ...that they need to do.
>
> Tomasz Onyszko wrote:
> > joe wrote:
> >> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn.
> >>
> >> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12.
> >
> > Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned
> > specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this
> > announcement too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with
> > exchange 12 which will be released in relatively short time.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> http://www.threatcode.com
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> -------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-------
> PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message
> or
any attachments.
> This information is strictly confidential and may be subject to
> attorney-client privilege. This message is intended only for the use
> of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> message, unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or
> using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
> you have received this in error, you should kindly notify the sender
> by
reply e-mail and immediately destroy this message.
> Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
> Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the right to monitor and
> review the content of all messages sent to and from this e-mail
> address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on
> the
Applebee's International, Inc.
> e-mail system.
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:824
| | 11/22/2005 6:41 AM |
| > joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with
> 200 to 300 windows open, and persistently run out of desktop
> heap (a kernel mode resource, I've even increased this several
> times), I'm greatly anticipating having a 64-bit desktop for
> "whizbang GUI stuff".
Brett I would never consider you a standard user, heck most people won't hit
30 windows open at once let alone hundreds unless they accidently hit CTRL-A
and Enter in explorer or outlook or something else that will launch new
windows. At one point for a company I had to write a special mailslot app
for receiving NET SEND messages on Win9x machines because the users would
close out the Win Popup app because they didn't like seeing something they
weren't immediately working on on the taskbar. It wasn't "clean" to them.
I myself probably top out at about 80-90 windows and that is if I don't
reboot for a couple of months and leave things open until I "get back to
them" and I consider myself to be a pretty "avid" user. On the plus side,
about 15-20 of those windows will be CMD Prompt but they are 9999 lines by
180 columns. The rest are a mixture of notepad, messenger, excel, IE, FF,
Outlook messages, TS, VPC, VMWare, and explorer windows. At the moment, I
have maybe 30 windows open but I rebooted today.
I think I understand why MS wants to go to 64 bit only. But I see it simply
as the tide turning from not thinking Enterprise to seemingly thinking all
enterprise so they can "scale" but mostly because they have too much fat to
fit in the 32 bit pants anymore for any load of any size that is carried.
Even an Exchange server not doing anything can practically be falling over
itself. SBS for example would do better with a lighter weight cleaner
messaging environment, not one that runs better because it can now use 8GB
of RAM. I recall running a time share system with dumb terminals on a
machine with 1MB of RAM that served 40 people consecutively (120 total
throughout the day), 16 bits, 18Mhz, and maybe 8MB of disk space. I realize
that times have changed but email and calendaring and file sharing and
printing all worked great, we had all of the stuff I use in Exchange, DLs,
meetings, recurring meetings, etc.
The one thing that Windows and the PC have encouraged is fat inefficient
coding. For quite a while the processor and disk/RAM increases helped it
along at the desktop but stuff hasn't moved quite as well at the server.
Moving away from a desktop OS at the server and desktop type apps at the
server could help, I don't know though I am just a tool writer. I am looking
forward to some serious improvements with Server Core though it seems the
traditionally fat apps probably won't run on it anyway because they need the
strawberry shortcake and chocolate pudding and cheesecake. Exchange is
slowly growing in hardware requirements to require the size of hardware it
was supposed to replace when replacing big fat mini and mainframe systems
but still doesn't perform as well. Note I am not saying everything from MS
is like this, but I am willing to say Exchange certainly is.
The only part of Exchange I can really talk about technically is the use of
AD based on traces, etc and it, overall, is poor. It is getting better, but
there has been and still is some pretty bad use there. I haven't had a
single session of tracing Exchange traffic to AD that I didn't at some point
say, WTF... There is no reason to assume that the only inefficiencies are
there. While it is possible all of the bad coding is strictly in the use of
AD, I would tend to not assume that. On top of that I have had some blog
conversations with some Exchange Dev folks and it sounds like fat is the
order for the day for the new management pieces with Monad too and they
didn't seem to have an inkling of what I was trying to point out about being
too fat. The bad thing is that it is one of, if not the best PC based
messaging/calendaring system out there. Some people seem to mistake that for
meaning it is good. Being the best doesn't make something good, it just
makes it better than the other crap. I would seriously love if someone else
would come out with something better, if only to make Exchange button down
and work hard at being really good. Look at what FF did for IE development.
Breathed whole new life into that product.
On the expensive disk. I don't see people who spend the money on the
expensive disk really cutting back on it just because MS say they can now
with E12. The large companies still aren't going to trust the cheaper disk
and will stick with configuring Exchange the way they have for some time,
definitely at first, maybe less as time goes on if it proves itself out. I
also don't expect people to scale up big time on E12 again at least
initially, the same scaling promises came out for E2K and people put 5000
people on a server and tended to find out it wasn't a good thing unless they
had very small mailboxes and nothing else going on (no DLs, no serious
searching, etc). They cut back to 4000 and then 3000 and then 2000 and some
all the way back into sub-1000 because of "power" users. The whole time,
there is no strong identification of WHAT was puking out the perf. You might
get DSACCESS counters pointing at an AD that is practically idling and two
parts of MS both saying their piece (AD and Exchange) is fine by every test
they know of except Exchange perf sucks. So you spend months chopping down
number of users and finding any slightly different user to further
subclassify users to break them out into even smaller groups.
Personally, most places put up with the speed of Exchange, none seem to brag
about how fast it is. I think most will welcome it going faster if it
happens to beat up the disks less and you get more throughput because of
less IOPS. The best thing done for the speed of Exchange in any recent times
that I recall is making Outlook run in cached mode so the users don't notice
the servers slobbering on themselves as often. The servers perform the same,
just users are less likely to notice.
I would love to see E12 be this amazing app but we can't honestly have those
conversations until say about 2009 once we have sat down and started to
figure out what it is doing and where it breaks at. I would have loved for
E2K3 to have been that amazing app or even E2K. Mostly we have seen, let's
change that and see how it works. Both in design/dev as well as daily
support. Personally I don't care what they do, as long as theypick something
and stick with it. I am getting a trifle annoyed with finding a bug and
trying to report it and being fought with concerning it actually being a
problem and then getting to the end to hear, we aren't doing that in the new
version so we don't care about it anyway or to put it another way, the new
version fixes everything.
Overall I see 64 bit to be the new pair of pants for Exchange simply because
it is too fat to fit in 32 bit pants even or maybe especially if the use is
extremely light say like 10-15 users.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:01 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I can confirm, yes, you will only be able to deploy Exchange 12 on amd64
(well x64, i.e. including EMTWhatever) hardware.
Now, I must confess something ...
A bit over one and a half years ago (~Mar 2004, give or take a couple
months), there was this "Focus 64" campaign, posters showed up everwhere
"Focus 64 ... Shift to the power of 64-bit ... Objects in
mirror are closer than they appear." It was just some internal propaganda
to get the development teams to be thinking and taking into consideration
64-bit ... there are always a few of these campaign's going on ...
Around the same time or shortly before this Exchange was still asking if we
could add PAE/AWE support to ESE like SQL. At one point, I vaguely remember
yelling across the room, "PAE? PAE?!? Are you kidding me?! We have 64-bit
desktops today! PAE will be mueseums in five years!" (the exact wording
probably involved swear words). I also mentioned that PAE is a horrible
hack, it makes me nauseous. Hack up ESE because they didn't want to port to
64-bits? Shortly after they were waffling again!!
Wondering if they could just make it run as a 32-bit app on 64-bit OSs,
large memory aware so they could go from the ~3GB they got today to the
3.9GB of address space a large aware app gets on a amd64 based Windows OS
(that'd be a 30% increase in available memory). They could get this if they
only ported the IFS driver to 64-bit, or removed it. BTW, the IFS driver is
what prevents running 32-bit Exch2k3 on 64-bit OSs. 64-bit OSs require
64-bit drivers / kernel mode components. At which point I made a clarifying
comment to the effect of, "No, no, I want to see 48 GBs of ESE buffer cache!
Only a native 64-bit store.exe will do. Get off your ..."
(perhpas I felt more swear words were necessary, I don't remember) Anyway,
with all this debate on "what 64-bit support means", I just wasn't 100%
convinced that Exchange was compelled enough ...
So I arranged with the guy in charge of the Focus 64 campaign to reserve 50
posters for the Exchange mailbox team's floor exclusively, and one night I
snuck over in the dead of night (or early early morning I think) and
plastered these posters up and down the mailbox team's hall, I put 64-bit
posters in thier regular reserved War team room, on the back of the dev
manager's chair, and even on the back of the bathroom stall doors, just so
when they're really "concentrating", they'd be thinking 64-bit.
I mean what was I supposed to do !?, they were making JET Blue look
bad. We've servers 1 TB worth of databases attached, and only .09 to .12%
of DB buffer cache, and email is kind of weird load, kind of 4/5ths OLTP and
1/5th DSS, and well basically Exchange is _starved_ for memory today.
JET had multiple 64-bit binaries (the Win2k DEC Alpha binary - Sept 1999
[last shipped in Beta 3, never made it to RTM], the ia64 binaries in Sept
2001, the amd64 binaries in Mar 2003). We had tested 64-bit Itanium DCs,
with on the order of 32 GBs of RAM, to great effectiveness for huge DIT
files.
Anyway, I'm not going to claim my persistent nagging of the mailbox team
swung the tide, I honestly think they would've come to the decision
naturally on thier own (it was the only real choice). But did walking by a
couple hall ways of posters make them _only_ Focus 64?? I personally don't
think so, but I've confessed, so I have a clear conciousness. :) If you need
someone to blame, you can blame me personally if you like ...
Overall ...
I'm quite happy, the Exchange team stepped up to the plate, and is going to
release IMO, the killer 64-bit app. They deserve accolades.
There are actuallly several details besides this one that make an inplace
upgrade a more difficult thing to do/support, and together these details
embolden the forced migration option. If you read the notes from people at
the IT Forum close enough, I saw at least 2 of the other reasons that
increase the difficulty of doing in place upgrades. We rigorously debate
these things, there are more aspects to the decision than has been mentioned
so far.
joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with 200 to 300
windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel mode
resource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatly anticipating
having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".
I had some comments on the cost debate, but I'll put that on another fork of
the thread ...
Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
ESE Developer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Rich Milburn wrote:
> Makes me wonder if MS is not betting at least some of the farm on the
quick 64 bit transition that Gates is certain is going to happen. If anyone
has the potential to influence that switch, MS has got it. The switch to 32
bit was overdue, so everyone realized the benefits and it happened fast.
But we've currently got a memory model that will allow us to quite
comfortably handle reading parts of programs and files and caching to disk -
even though it's common knowledge that caching to disk, or reading the next
parts of files, is a huge speed bottleneck. Memory price was a barrier
before - who could afford 1GB of RAM?? But that barrier is diminishing, when
you can buy a fully functional PC for a couple/few hundred bucks. What if I
did editing, or ran some kind of server software, that could load itself, or
its working space, or its database, entirely into memory?? With a 3GB per
app current limit, it doesn't happen now, so it's hard to imagine what kind
of functionality could be possible in that model. The question I'm curious
about is what is Microsoft's reasoning behind doing it - is it because they
are too lazy to program 2 platforms, because they are too lazy to write
efficient code, or because there is a feature set they want to use that is
only possible with the extended memory space? There are a lot of
applications (uses) that are pretty tough to tackle because of the datasets
they require (i.e. genetic algorithms/neural networking/predictive analysis)
but those might become more commonplace with the address space to handle
them - with multiple processors yes but also with a TB limit on physical
RAM.
>
> Does all that help me read my list mail better? Probably not. At
> least not until I can set up rules that can research questions for me
> automatically and present me with a proven response I can sign and
> click send :)
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:47 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> The first thing I thought of when I read the announcement that it was
> to test the waters and MS would recall it as a "the person spoke out of
turn".
> Then I heard it was Muglia which shored it up quite bit. Now I am
> hearing more in dept info from various places and fully believe that
> MS is definitely intending to do this.
>
> Regardless of what MS or Intel or AMD does, I am not so sure I expect
> the death of 32 bit machines any time soon. They will just go to more
> lower end uses than running a big bad GUI OS. Even if AMD and Intel
> drop production completely, I expect you will see some Chinese/Korean
> Chip manufacturer cranking them out. If at the same price or the 32
> bit was cheaper I would take the MP 32 bit system over a single processor
64 bit for a home system.
> I previously bought the 64 bit system to do some eventual testing
> versus thinking it was going to be so much better. I like 64 bit so
> much I am running a 32 bit OS on it. ;o) I expect at some point
> someone will complain that I need to make my tools 64 bit. I don't
> expect it to happen whole hog or probably even at all for quite some time.
>
> Without all of the whizbang GUI stuff, 32 bit is quite fine for many
> many many and let me just say probably most applications. It would be
> for even longer though the push is to go 64 bit because some apps have
> hit ceilings in easy use of the memory they need. 64 bit is about
> memory and available address space for resource allocation, etc. There
> are extended memory schemes available for 32 bit just like there were
> for 16 bit and 8 bit. They are a pain to code around though and no one
> likes to do it. When we go to
> 128 bit procs it will be the same issue, the apps are too fat to
> easily fit in the memory space we have available at the time. I
> wouldn't even be close to being stupid enough to say we won't ever need
128 bit...
>
> Who was it that allegedly said "640KB ought to enough for anybody."?
>
>
> For pure speed, multiprocessing, not 64 bit, is where we are and need
> to be going. That also requires extensive work in the coding side of
> things because code not properly written for MP purposes can perform
> very badly in MP machines. This involved coding techniqus and smart
> compilers that can generate good MP code. I have seen some in house
> apps in previous jobs that failed in a stellar fashion once loaded
> onto production MP servers while the test environment was entirely
> single processor. I expect there are folks in software companies who
> have experienced the same with their apps. I also expect we will have
> fun with some 32 bit apps that perform in quite unique ways under 64
> bit. Shouldn't happen, but lots of things that shouldn't happen, do.
> That is just the way this stuff works or else we would all be out of jobs.
>
>
> joe
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:19 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> I agree with you. This is one stupid Ώ] business decision that will
> ultimately hurt E12 adoption. We reached the plateau of 5.5 to E2K3
> mass migration a long time ago. Most people still on 5.5 are waiting
> to see "the Next Thing" and we can't seem to move them from their
standoffish position.
> Erecting a roadblock at this point (in the name of 64-bit innovation)
> will create a huge disincentive to the adoption of this "Next Thing".
> The customers have enough reason to not want to adopt new technologies
> "just because......". Now MS is giving them more ammunition to not even
bother.
>
> I do not know what this was predicated on. Perhaps MS is going to
> pressure the OEM into abandoning 32-bit machines. Perhaps they will
> succeed, perhaps not. My hope is that this is merely a feeler from MS
> to gauge the industry's reaction to the plan. I am guessing somewhere
> in someone's back pocket is a card that reads "Hehehe....just
> kidding". If those guesses are wrong, then let me hazard one more
> guess - MS is not REALLY interested in getting a lot of people onto
> E12 because E12 is just a transitional platform (like WinME) and will be
abandoned as soon as it escapes from the Redmond lab.
>
> OK, maybe I'm seriously wrong on all my guesses. In which case, I
> would have to conclude that someone somewhere is seriously deluded. I
> don't see a lot of customers clamoring for 64-bit. Not yesterday, not
> today, and 95% of the clients I interface with don't have it in their
> 2-year plans. Drawing an imaginary line and proclaiming "64-bit or
> die" will only lead to one outcome
> - a premature death for all the hard work so far invested in E12. In
> the absence of death, MS will surely run into the adoption roadblock
> ΐ] they are currently contending with in the XP space - people see no
> need to move off of Win2K (thank you very much), especially now that
> Vista is looming large.
>
> Ώ] I guess one of the perks of being a partial observer is being able
> to call MS decisions "stupid"
> ΐ] Unlike a lot of people, I get paid to push MS technologies, so I
> have a vested interested in getting maximum adoptions.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.readymaids.com - we know IT
> www.akomolafe.com
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of joe
> Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 6:21 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
>
>
> They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a
> platform, this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some
> nasty functional problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha
> and the PowerPC. They just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet.
> You still hear occasional complaints about those being dropped though
> you hear a lot more of "what are those platforms".
>
> It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange
> Dev must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64
> bit so that is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and
> design decisions would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems
> as well, probably help considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have
> helped the DSACCESS problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security design
and AD integration.
> Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix
> much of anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they
> are able to use the more and more memory that you throw at it without
> having to use the complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit.
> Some might call that covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o)
>
> Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy
> bigger/faster hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older
> version of Windows to run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be
> amazing how fast it is. The hardware companies instead of bitching at
> MS should be paying them dividends and praising them for driving the
hardware industry.
>
> Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going
.NET....
>
>
> joe
>
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan
> Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003.
>
> We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to
> you guys?
>
> Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember
> we're just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007....
> SBS after that.
>
> I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to
> drop backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better
security.
> So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of
> 64 bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again, isn't
it?
>
> More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms
> are looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and break
it.
>
> 2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And
> when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs
> because of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks.
>
> Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think?
>
> Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to
> go...yeah ...that they need to do.
>
> Tomasz Onyszko wrote:
> > joe wrote:
> >> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn.
> >>
> >> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12.
> >
> > Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned
> > specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this
> > announcement too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with
> > exchange 12 which will be released in relatively short time.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> http://www.threatcode.com
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> -------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-------
> PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message or
any attachments.
> This information is strictly confidential and may be subject to
> attorney-client privilege. This message is intended only for the use
> of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> message, unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or
> using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
> you have received this in error, you should kindly notify the sender by
reply e-mail and immediately destroy this message.
> Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
> Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the right to monitor and
> review the content of all messages sent to and from this e-mail
> address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the
Applebee's International, Inc.
> e-mail system.
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| AD000001335
Posts:0
| | 11/22/2005 8:24 AM |
| I respectfully disagree. Exchange doesn't have a large memory footprint
because of code but because of caching, which is necessary to improve
performance. I've never disagreed with the technical merit of a 64-bit
Exchange for large mailbox servers, but I think that the decision to drop
32-bit is, marketing-wise, one release too early.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!?
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:39 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
> joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with 200 to
> 300 windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel
> mode resource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatly
> anticipating having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".
Brett I would never consider you a standard user, heck most people won't hit
30 windows open at once let alone hundreds unless they accidently hit CTRL-A
and Enter in explorer or outlook or something else that will launch new
windows. At one point for a company I had to write a special mailslot app
for receiving NET SEND messages on Win9x machines because the users would
close out the Win Popup app because they didn't like seeing something they
weren't immediately working on on the taskbar. It wasn't "clean" to them.
I myself probably top out at about 80-90 windows and that is if I don't
reboot for a couple of months and leave things open until I "get back to
them" and I consider myself to be a pretty "avid" user. On the plus side,
about 15-20 of those windows will be CMD Prompt but they are 9999 lines by
180 columns. The rest are a mixture of notepad, messenger, excel, IE, FF,
Outlook messages, TS, VPC, VMWare, and explorer windows. At the moment, I
have maybe 30 windows open but I rebooted today.
I think I understand why MS wants to go to 64 bit only. But I see it simply
as the tide turning from not thinking Enterprise to seemingly thinking all
enterprise so they can "scale" but mostly because they have too much fat to
fit in the 32 bit pants anymore for any load of any size that is carried.
Even an Exchange server not doing anything can practically be falling over
itself. SBS for example would do better with a lighter weight cleaner
messaging environment, not one that runs better because it can now use 8GB
of RAM. I recall running a time share system with dumb terminals on a
machine with 1MB of RAM that served 40 people consecutively (120 total
throughout the day), 16 bits, 18Mhz, and maybe 8MB of disk space. I realize
that times have changed but email and calendaring and file sharing and
printing all worked great, we had all of the stuff I use in Exchange, DLs,
meetings, recurring meetings, etc.
The one thing that Windows and the PC have encouraged is fat inefficient
coding. For quite a while the processor and disk/RAM increases helped it
along at the desktop but stuff hasn't moved quite as well at the server.
Moving away from a desktop OS at the server and desktop type apps at the
server could help, I don't know though I am just a tool writer. I am looking
forward to some serious improvements with Server Core though it seems the
traditionally fat apps probably won't run on it anyway because they need the
strawberry shortcake and chocolate pudding and cheesecake. Exchange is
slowly growing in hardware requirements to require the size of hardware it
was supposed to replace when replacing big fat mini and mainframe systems
but still doesn't perform as well. Note I am not saying everything from MS
is like this, but I am willing to say Exchange certainly is.
The only part of Exchange I can really talk about technically is the use of
AD based on traces, etc and it, overall, is poor. It is getting better, but
there has been and still is some pretty bad use there. I haven't had a
single session of tracing Exchange traffic to AD that I didn't at some point
say, WTF... There is no reason to assume that the only inefficiencies are
there. While it is possible all of the bad coding is strictly in the use of
AD, I would tend to not assume that. On top of that I have had some blog
conversations with some Exchange Dev folks and it sounds like fat is the
order for the day for the new management pieces with Monad too and they
didn't seem to have an inkling of what I was trying to point out about being
too fat. The bad thing is that it is one of, if not the best PC based
messaging/calendaring system out there. Some people seem to mistake that for
meaning it is good. Being the best doesn't make something good, it just
makes it better than the other crap. I would seriously love if someone else
would come out with something better, if only to make Exchange button down
and work hard at being really good. Look at what FF did for IE development.
Breathed whole new life into that product.
On the expensive disk. I don't see people who spend the money on the
expensive disk really cutting back on it just because MS say they can now
with E12. The large companies still aren't going to trust the cheaper disk
and will stick with configuring Exchange the way they have for some time,
definitely at first, maybe less as time goes on if it proves itself out. I
also don't expect people to scale up big time on E12 again at least
initially, the same scaling promises came out for E2K and people put 5000
people on a server and tended to find out it wasn't a good thing unless they
had very small mailboxes and nothing else going on (no DLs, no serious
searching, etc). They cut back to 4000 and then 3000 and then 2000 and some
all the way back into sub-1000 because of "power" users. The whole time,
there is no strong identification of WHAT was puking out the perf. You might
get DSACCESS counters pointing at an AD that is practically idling and two
parts of MS both saying their piece (AD and Exchange) is fine by every test
they know of except Exchange perf sucks. So you spend months chopping down
number of users and finding any slightly different user to further
subclassify users to break them out into even smaller groups.
Personally, most places put up with the speed of Exchange, none seem to brag
about how fast it is. I think most will welcome it going faster if it
happens to beat up the disks less and you get more throughput because of
less IOPS. The best thing done for the speed of Exchange in any recent times
that I recall is making Outlook run in cached mode so the users don't notice
the servers slobbering on themselves as often. The servers perform the same,
just users are less likely to notice.
I would love to see E12 be this amazing app but we can't honestly have those
conversations until say about 2009 once we have sat down and started to
figure out what it is doing and where it breaks at. I would have loved for
E2K3 to have been that amazing app or even E2K. Mostly we have seen, let's
change that and see how it works. Both in design/dev as well as daily
support. Personally I don't care what they do, as long as theypick something
and stick with it. I am getting a trifle annoyed with finding a bug and
trying to report it and being fought with concerning it actually being a
problem and then getting to the end to hear, we aren't doing that in the new
version so we don't care about it anyway or to put it another way, the new
version fixes everything.
Overall I see 64 bit to be the new pair of pants for Exchange simply because
it is too fat to fit in 32 bit pants even or maybe especially if the use is
extremely light say like 10-15 users.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:01 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I can confirm, yes, you will only be able to deploy Exchange 12 on amd64
(well x64, i.e. including EMTWhatever) hardware.
Now, I must confess something ...
A bit over one and a half years ago (~Mar 2004, give or take a couple
months), there was this "Focus 64" campaign, posters showed up everwhere
"Focus 64 ... Shift to the power of 64-bit ... Objects in
mirror are closer than they appear." It was just some internal propaganda
to get the development teams to be thinking and taking into consideration
64-bit ... there are always a few of these campaign's going on ...
Around the same time or shortly before this Exchange was still asking if we
could add PAE/AWE support to ESE like SQL. At one point, I vaguely remember
yelling across the room, "PAE? PAE?!? Are you kidding me?! We have 64-bit
desktops today! PAE will be mueseums in five years!" (the exact wording
probably involved swear words). I also mentioned that PAE is a horrible
hack, it makes me nauseous. Hack up ESE because they didn't want to port to
64-bits? Shortly after they were waffling again!!
Wondering if they could just make it run as a 32-bit app on 64-bit OSs,
large memory aware so they could go from the ~3GB they got today to the
3.9GB of address space a large aware app gets on a amd64 based Windows OS
(that'd be a 30% increase in available memory). They could get this if they
only ported the IFS driver to 64-bit, or removed it. BTW, the IFS driver is
what prevents running 32-bit Exch2k3 on 64-bit OSs. 64-bit OSs require
64-bit drivers / kernel mode components. At which point I made a clarifying
comment to the effect of, "No, no, I want to see 48 GBs of ESE buffer cache!
Only a native 64-bit store.exe will do. Get off your ..."
(perhpas I felt more swear words were necessary, I don't remember) Anyway,
with all this debate on "what 64-bit support means", I just wasn't 100%
convinced that Exchange was compelled enough ...
So I arranged with the guy in charge of the Focus 64 campaign to reserve 50
posters for the Exchange mailbox team's floor exclusively, and one night I
snuck over in the dead of night (or early early morning I think) and
plastered these posters up and down the mailbox team's hall, I put 64-bit
posters in thier regular reserved War team room, on the back of the dev
manager's chair, and even on the back of the bathroom stall doors, just so
when they're really "concentrating", they'd be thinking 64-bit.
I mean what was I supposed to do !?, they were making JET Blue look
bad. We've servers 1 TB worth of databases attached, and only .09 to .12%
of DB buffer cache, and email is kind of weird load, kind of 4/5ths OLTP and
1/5th DSS, and well basically Exchange is _starved_ for memory today.
JET had multiple 64-bit binaries (the Win2k DEC Alpha binary - Sept 1999
[last shipped in Beta 3, never made it to RTM], the ia64 binaries in Sept
2001, the amd64 binaries in Mar 2003). We had tested 64-bit Itanium DCs,
with on the order of 32 GBs of RAM, to great effectiveness for huge DIT
files.
Anyway, I'm not going to claim my persistent nagging of the mailbox team
swung the tide, I honestly think they would've come to the decision
naturally on thier own (it was the only real choice). But did walking by a
couple hall ways of posters make them _only_ Focus 64?? I personally don't
think so, but I've confessed, so I have a clear conciousness. :) If you need
someone to blame, you can blame me personally if you like ...
Overall ...
I'm quite happy, the Exchange team stepped up to the plate, and is going to
release IMO, the killer 64-bit app. They deserve accolades.
There are actuallly several details besides this one that make an inplace
upgrade a more difficult thing to do/support, and together these details
embolden the forced migration option. If you read the notes from people at
the IT Forum close enough, I saw at least 2 of the other reasons that
increase the difficulty of doing in place upgrades. We rigorously debate
these things, there are more aspects to the decision than has been mentioned
so far.
joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with 200 to 300
windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel mode
resource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatly anticipating
having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".
I had some comments on the cost debate, but I'll put that on another fork of
the thread ...
Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
ESE Developer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Rich Milburn wrote:
> Makes me wonder if MS is not betting at least some of the farm on the
quick 64 bit transition that Gates is certain is going to happen. If anyone
has the potential to influence that switch, MS has got it. The switch to 32
bit was overdue, so everyone realized the benefits and it happened fast.
But we've currently got a memory model that will allow us to quite
comfortably handle reading parts of programs and files and caching to disk -
even though it's common knowledge that caching to disk, or reading the next
parts of files, is a huge speed bottleneck. Memory price was a barrier
before - who could afford 1GB of RAM?? But that barrier is diminishing, when
you can buy a fully functional PC for a couple/few hundred bucks. What if I
did editing, or ran some kind of server software, that could load itself, or
its working space, or its database, entirely into memory?? With a 3GB per
app current limit, it doesn't happen now, so it's hard to imagine what kind
of functionality could be possible in that model. The question I'm curious
about is what is Microsoft's reasoning behind doing it - is it because they
are too lazy to program 2 platforms, because they are too lazy to write
efficient code, or because there is a feature set they want to use that is
only possible with the extended memory space? There are a lot of
applications (uses) that are pretty tough to tackle because of the datasets
they require (i.e. genetic algorithms/neural networking/predictive analysis)
but those might become more commonplace with the address space to handle
them - with multiple processors yes but also with a TB limit on physical
RAM.
>
> Does all that help me read my list mail better? Probably not. At
> least not until I can set up rules that can research questions for me
> automatically and present me with a proven response I can sign and
> click send :)
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:47 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> The first thing I thought of when I read the announcement that it was
> to test the waters and MS would recall it as a "the person spoke out
> of
turn".
> Then I heard it was Muglia which shored it up quite bit. Now I am
> hearing more in dept info from various places and fully believe that
> MS is definitely intending to do this.
>
> Regardless of what MS or Intel or AMD does, I am not so sure I expect
> the death of 32 bit machines any time soon. They will just go to more
> lower end uses than running a big bad GUI OS. Even if AMD and Intel
> drop production completely, I expect you will see some Chinese/Korean
> Chip manufacturer cranking them out. If at the same price or the 32
> bit was cheaper I would take the MP 32 bit system over a single
> processor
64 bit for a home system.
> I previously bought the 64 bit system to do some eventual testing
> versus thinking it was going to be so much better. I like 64 bit so
> much I am running a 32 bit OS on it. ;o) I expect at some point
> someone will complain that I need to make my tools 64 bit. I don't
> expect it to happen whole hog or probably even at all for quite some time.
>
> Without all of the whizbang GUI stuff, 32 bit is quite fine for many
> many many and let me just say probably most applications. It would be
> for even longer though the push is to go 64 bit because some apps have
> hit ceilings in easy use of the memory they need. 64 bit is about
> memory and available address space for resource allocation, etc. There
> are extended memory schemes available for 32 bit just like there were
> for 16 bit and 8 bit. They are a pain to code around though and no one
> likes to do it. When we go to
> 128 bit procs it will be the same issue, the apps are too fat to
> easily fit in the memory space we have available at the time. I
> wouldn't even be close to being stupid enough to say we won't ever
> need
128 bit...
>
> Who was it that allegedly said "640KB ought to enough for anybody."?
>
>
> For pure speed, multiprocessing, not 64 bit, is where we are and need
> to be going. That also requires extensive work in the coding side of
> things because code not properly written for MP purposes can perform
> very badly in MP machines. This involved coding techniqus and smart
> compilers that can generate good MP code. I have seen some in house
> apps in previous jobs that failed in a stellar fashion once loaded
> onto production MP servers while the test environment was entirely
> single processor. I expect there are folks in software companies who
> have experienced the same with their apps. I also expect we will have
> fun with some 32 bit apps that perform in quite unique ways under 64
> bit. Shouldn't happen, but lots of things that shouldn't happen, do.
> That is just the way this stuff works or else we would all be out of jobs.
>
>
> joe
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:19 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> I agree with you. This is one stupid Ώ] business decision that will
> ultimately hurt E12 adoption. We reached the plateau of 5.5 to E2K3
> mass migration a long time ago. Most people still on 5.5 are waiting
> to see "the Next Thing" and we can't seem to move them from their
standoffish position.
> Erecting a roadblock at this point (in the name of 64-bit innovation)
> will create a huge disincentive to the adoption of this "Next Thing".
> The customers have enough reason to not want to adopt new technologies
> "just because......". Now MS is giving them more ammunition to not
> even
bother.
>
> I do not know what this was predicated on. Perhaps MS is going to
> pressure the OEM into abandoning 32-bit machines. Perhaps they will
> succeed, perhaps not. My hope is that this is merely a feeler from MS
> to gauge the industry's reaction to the plan. I am guessing somewhere
> in someone's back pocket is a card that reads "Hehehe....just
> kidding". If those guesses are wrong, then let me hazard one more
> guess - MS is not REALLY interested in getting a lot of people onto
> E12 because E12 is just a transitional platform (like WinME) and will
> be
abandoned as soon as it escapes from the Redmond lab.
>
> OK, maybe I'm seriously wrong on all my guesses. In which case, I
> would have to conclude that someone somewhere is seriously deluded. I
> don't see a lot of customers clamoring for 64-bit. Not yesterday, not
> today, and 95% of the clients I interface with don't have it in their
> 2-year plans. Drawing an imaginary line and proclaiming "64-bit or
> die" will only lead to one outcome
> - a premature death for all the hard work so far invested in E12. In
> the absence of death, MS will surely run into the adoption roadblock
> ΐ] they are currently contending with in the XP space - people see no
> need to move off of Win2K (thank you very much), especially now that
> Vista is looming large.
>
> Ώ] I guess one of the perks of being a partial observer is being able
> to call MS decisions "stupid"
> ΐ] Unlike a lot of people, I get paid to push MS technologies, so I
> have a vested interested in getting maximum adoptions.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.readymaids.com - we know IT
> www.akomolafe.com
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of joe
> Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 6:21 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
>
>
> They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a
> platform, this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some
> nasty functional problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha
> and the PowerPC. They just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet.
> You still hear occasional complaints about those being dropped though
> you hear a lot more of "what are those platforms".
>
> It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange
> Dev must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64
> bit so that is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and
> design decisions would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems
> as well, probably help considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have
> helped the DSACCESS problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security
> design
and AD integration.
> Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix
> much of anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they
> are able to use the more and more memory that you throw at it without
> having to use the complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit.
> Some might call that covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o)
>
> Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy
> bigger/faster hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older
> version of Windows to run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be
> amazing how fast it is. The hardware companies instead of bitching at
> MS should be paying them dividends and praising them for driving the
hardware industry.
>
> Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going
.NET....
>
>
> joe
>
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan
> Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003.
>
> We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to
> you guys?
>
> Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember
> we're just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007....
> SBS after that.
>
> I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to
> drop backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better
security.
> So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of
> 64 bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again,
> isn't
it?
>
> More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms
> are looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and
> break
it.
>
> 2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And
> when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs
> because of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks.
>
> Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think?
>
> Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to
> go...yeah ...that they need to do.
>
> Tomasz Onyszko wrote:
> > joe wrote:
> >> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn.
> >>
> >> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12.
> >
> > Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned
> > specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this
> > announcement too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with
> > exchange 12 which will be released in relatively short time.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> http://www.threatcode.com
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> -------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-------
> PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message
> or
any attachments.
> This information is strictly confidential and may be subject to
> attorney-client privilege. This message is intended only for the use
> of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> message, unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or
> using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
> you have received this in error, you should kindly notify the sender
> by
reply e-mail and immediately destroy this message.
> Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
> Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the right to monitor and
> review the content of all messages sent to and from this e-mail
> address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on
> the
Applebee's International, Inc.
> e-mail system.
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
| listmail
Posts:824
| | 11/22/2005 11:11 AM |
| I did a little digging. Looks like the store cache by default is ~850MB but
can be increased via config changes to 1.2GB. DSACCESS cache on E2K is 25MB
and 25MB but can be increased to a recommended max of approximately 100MB
and 100MB. One thing I haven't found is what you are robbing to allow for
those increases.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 1:18 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I believe the store (ESE) caching is only about 1GB. The AD Caching depends
on version, but E2K had 50MB total cache split evenly between user info and
config info , E2K3 I think has maybe 200MB of cache with most of that going
to user info.
I agree that the cut from 32 bit is too soon. I think that a lot could be
done with the 32 bit version to make it great for smaller deployments such
as caching mods and ESE database configurations (such as page sizing).
Alternatively, offer a different product for smaller orgs. How much is in
the main product that has no bearing for small orgs? Or even in many or most
orgs? Or maybe, to get to Enterprise level with certain new capabilities for
scaling you have to use 64 bit maybe? Then watch to see how many deploy 64
versus 32 PLUS get good experience of the 64 bit version without impacting
everyone. Smarter use of rule processing. Smarter AD use. Do a trace of an
Exchange server talking to AD sometime, it is unlikely that you won't say
WTF when watching the traffic if you look at the duplication of queries
within a single minute let alone within 10 or 20 or 30 minutes. Maybe use a
local disk based caching of AD info if the AD isn't local? That helps cut
down on network latency and impact from busy GCs.
Something I said on an offline thread about my previous post was a
modularized version would be nice, you can say what pieces you want in there
so if you don't say want Server side rules or tasks or IM or or do, you can
control it going in there. Maybe allow someone to write their own
categorizor ground up to plug in that is opitimized for them or certain
types of uses.
Generic software that works for everyone tends to have an issue of not being
great for anyone.
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley [MVP]
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:21 AM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I respectfully disagree. Exchange doesn't have a large memory footprint
because of code but because of caching, which is necessary to improve
performance. I've never disagreed with the technical merit of a 64-bit
Exchange for large mailbox servers, but I think that the decision to drop
32-bit is, marketing-wise, one release too early.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Freelance E-Mail Philosopher
Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!?
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:39 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
> joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with 200 to
> 300 windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel
> mode resource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatly
> anticipating having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".
Brett I would never consider you a standard user, heck most people won't hit
30 windows open at once let alone hundreds unless they accidently hit CTRL-A
and Enter in explorer or outlook or something else that will launch new
windows. At one point for a company I had to write a special mailslot app
for receiving NET SEND messages on Win9x machines because the users would
close out the Win Popup app because they didn't like seeing something they
weren't immediately working on on the taskbar. It wasn't "clean" to them.
I myself probably top out at about 80-90 windows and that is if I don't
reboot for a couple of months and leave things open until I "get back to
them" and I consider myself to be a pretty "avid" user. On the plus side,
about 15-20 of those windows will be CMD Prompt but they are 9999 lines by
180 columns. The rest are a mixture of notepad, messenger, excel, IE, FF,
Outlook messages, TS, VPC, VMWare, and explorer windows. At the moment, I
have maybe 30 windows open but I rebooted today.
I think I understand why MS wants to go to 64 bit only. But I see it simply
as the tide turning from not thinking Enterprise to seemingly thinking all
enterprise so they can "scale" but mostly because they have too much fat to
fit in the 32 bit pants anymore for any load of any size that is carried.
Even an Exchange server not doing anything can practically be falling over
itself. SBS for example would do better with a lighter weight cleaner
messaging environment, not one that runs better because it can now use 8GB
of RAM. I recall running a time share system with dumb terminals on a
machine with 1MB of RAM that served 40 people consecutively (120 total
throughout the day), 16 bits, 18Mhz, and maybe 8MB of disk space. I realize
that times have changed but email and calendaring and file sharing and
printing all worked great, we had all of the stuff I use in Exchange, DLs,
meetings, recurring meetings, etc.
The one thing that Windows and the PC have encouraged is fat inefficient
coding. For quite a while the processor and disk/RAM increases helped it
along at the desktop but stuff hasn't moved quite as well at the server.
Moving away from a desktop OS at the server and desktop type apps at the
server could help, I don't know though I am just a tool writer. I am looking
forward to some serious improvements with Server Core though it seems the
traditionally fat apps probably won't run on it anyway because they need the
strawberry shortcake and chocolate pudding and cheesecake. Exchange is
slowly growing in hardware requirements to require the size of hardware it
was supposed to replace when replacing big fat mini and mainframe systems
but still doesn't perform as well. Note I am not saying everything from MS
is like this, but I am willing to say Exchange certainly is.
The only part of Exchange I can really talk about technically is the use of
AD based on traces, etc and it, overall, is poor. It is getting better, but
there has been and still is some pretty bad use there. I haven't had a
single session of tracing Exchange traffic to AD that I didn't at some point
say, WTF... There is no reason to assume that the only inefficiencies are
there. While it is possible all of the bad coding is strictly in the use of
AD, I would tend to not assume that. On top of that I have had some blog
conversations with some Exchange Dev folks and it sounds like fat is the
order for the day for the new management pieces with Monad too and they
didn't seem to have an inkling of what I was trying to point out about being
too fat. The bad thing is that it is one of, if not the best PC based
messaging/calendaring system out there. Some people seem to mistake that for
meaning it is good. Being the best doesn't make something good, it just
makes it better than the other crap. I would seriously love if someone else
would come out with something better, if only to make Exchange button down
and work hard at being really good. Look at what FF did for IE development.
Breathed whole new life into that product.
On the expensive disk. I don't see people who spend the money on the
expensive disk really cutting back on it just because MS say they can now
with E12. The large companies still aren't going to trust the cheaper disk
and will stick with configuring Exchange the way they have for some time,
definitely at first, maybe less as time goes on if it proves itself out. I
also don't expect people to scale up big time on E12 again at least
initially, the same scaling promises came out for E2K and people put 5000
people on a server and tended to find out it wasn't a good thing unless they
had very small mailboxes and nothing else going on (no DLs, no serious
searching, etc). They cut back to 4000 and then 3000 and then 2000 and some
all the way back into sub-1000 because of "power" users. The whole time,
there is no strong identification of WHAT was puking out the perf. You might
get DSACCESS counters pointing at an AD that is practically idling and two
parts of MS both saying their piece (AD and Exchange) is fine by every test
they know of except Exchange perf sucks. So you spend months chopping down
number of users and finding any slightly different user to further
subclassify users to break them out into even smaller groups.
Personally, most places put up with the speed of Exchange, none seem to brag
about how fast it is. I think most will welcome it going faster if it
happens to beat up the disks less and you get more throughput because of
less IOPS. The best thing done for the speed of Exchange in any recent times
that I recall is making Outlook run in cached mode so the users don't notice
the servers slobbering on themselves as often. The servers perform the same,
just users are less likely to notice.
I would love to see E12 be this amazing app but we can't honestly have those
conversations until say about 2009 once we have sat down and started to
figure out what it is doing and where it breaks at. I would have loved for
E2K3 to have been that amazing app or even E2K. Mostly we have seen, let's
change that and see how it works. Both in design/dev as well as daily
support. Personally I don't care what they do, as long as theypick something
and stick with it. I am getting a trifle annoyed with finding a bug and
trying to report it and being fought with concerning it actually being a
problem and then getting to the end to hear, we aren't doing that in the new
version so we don't care about it anyway or to put it another way, the new
version fixes everything.
Overall I see 64 bit to be the new pair of pants for Exchange simply because
it is too fat to fit in 32 bit pants even or maybe especially if the use is
extremely light say like 10-15 users.
joe
-----Original Message-----
From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 12:01 PM
To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit announcement
I can confirm, yes, you will only be able to deploy Exchange 12 on amd64
(well x64, i.e. including EMTWhatever) hardware.
Now, I must confess something ...
A bit over one and a half years ago (~Mar 2004, give or take a couple
months), there was this "Focus 64" campaign, posters showed up everwhere
"Focus 64 ... Shift to the power of 64-bit ... Objects in
mirror are closer than they appear." It was just some internal propaganda
to get the development teams to be thinking and taking into consideration
64-bit ... there are always a few of these campaign's going on ...
Around the same time or shortly before this Exchange was still asking if we
could add PAE/AWE support to ESE like SQL. At one point, I vaguely remember
yelling across the room, "PAE? PAE?!? Are you kidding me?! We have 64-bit
desktops today! PAE will be mueseums in five years!" (the exact wording
probably involved swear words). I also mentioned that PAE is a horrible
hack, it makes me nauseous. Hack up ESE because they didn't want to port to
64-bits? Shortly after they were waffling again!!
Wondering if they could just make it run as a 32-bit app on 64-bit OSs,
large memory aware so they could go from the ~3GB they got today to the
3.9GB of address space a large aware app gets on a amd64 based Windows OS
(that'd be a 30% increase in available memory). They could get this if they
only ported the IFS driver to 64-bit, or removed it. BTW, the IFS driver is
what prevents running 32-bit Exch2k3 on 64-bit OSs. 64-bit OSs require
64-bit drivers / kernel mode components. At which point I made a clarifying
comment to the effect of, "No, no, I want to see 48 GBs of ESE buffer cache!
Only a native 64-bit store.exe will do. Get off your ..."
(perhpas I felt more swear words were necessary, I don't remember) Anyway,
with all this debate on "what 64-bit support means", I just wasn't 100%
convinced that Exchange was compelled enough ...
So I arranged with the guy in charge of the Focus 64 campaign to reserve 50
posters for the Exchange mailbox team's floor exclusively, and one night I
snuck over in the dead of night (or early early morning I think) and
plastered these posters up and down the mailbox team's hall, I put 64-bit
posters in thier regular reserved War team room, on the back of the dev
manager's chair, and even on the back of the bathroom stall doors, just so
when they're really "concentrating", they'd be thinking 64-bit.
I mean what was I supposed to do !?, they were making JET Blue look
bad. We've servers 1 TB worth of databases attached, and only .09 to .12%
of DB buffer cache, and email is kind of weird load, kind of 4/5ths OLTP and
1/5th DSS, and well basically Exchange is _starved_ for memory today.
JET had multiple 64-bit binaries (the Win2k DEC Alpha binary - Sept 1999
[last shipped in Beta 3, never made it to RTM], the ia64 binaries in Sept
2001, the amd64 binaries in Mar 2003). We had tested 64-bit Itanium DCs,
with on the order of 32 GBs of RAM, to great effectiveness for huge DIT
files.
Anyway, I'm not going to claim my persistent nagging of the mailbox team
swung the tide, I honestly think they would've come to the decision
naturally on thier own (it was the only real choice). But did walking by a
couple hall ways of posters make them _only_ Focus 64?? I personally don't
think so, but I've confessed, so I have a clear conciousness. :) If you need
someone to blame, you can blame me personally if you like ...
Overall ...
I'm quite happy, the Exchange team stepped up to the plate, and is going to
release IMO, the killer 64-bit app. They deserve accolades.
There are actuallly several details besides this one that make an inplace
upgrade a more difficult thing to do/support, and together these details
embolden the forced migration option. If you read the notes from people at
the IT Forum close enough, I saw at least 2 of the other reasons that
increase the difficulty of doing in place upgrades. We rigorously debate
these things, there are more aspects to the decision than has been mentioned
so far.
joe, I run my desktop heavily loaded, and frequently run with 200 to 300
windows open, and persistently run out of desktop heap (a kernel mode
resource, I've even increased this several times), I'm greatly anticipating
having a 64-bit desktop for "whizbang GUI stuff".
I had some comments on the cost debate, but I'll put that on another fork of
the thread ...
Cheers,
BrettSh [msft]
ESE Developer
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005, Rich Milburn wrote:
> Makes me wonder if MS is not betting at least some of the farm on the
quick 64 bit transition that Gates is certain is going to happen. If anyone
has the potential to influence that switch, MS has got it. The switch to 32
bit was overdue, so everyone realized the benefits and it happened fast.
But we've currently got a memory model that will allow us to quite
comfortably handle reading parts of programs and files and caching to disk -
even though it's common knowledge that caching to disk, or reading the next
parts of files, is a huge speed bottleneck. Memory price was a barrier
before - who could afford 1GB of RAM?? But that barrier is diminishing, when
you can buy a fully functional PC for a couple/few hundred bucks. What if I
did editing, or ran some kind of server software, that could load itself, or
its working space, or its database, entirely into memory?? With a 3GB per
app current limit, it doesn't happen now, so it's hard to imagine what kind
of functionality could be possible in that model. The question I'm curious
about is what is Microsoft's reasoning behind doing it - is it because they
are too lazy to program 2 platforms, because they are too lazy to write
efficient code, or because there is a feature set they want to use that is
only possible with the extended memory space? There are a lot of
applications (uses) that are pretty tough to tackle because of the datasets
they require (i.e. genetic algorithms/neural networking/predictive analysis)
but those might become more commonplace with the address space to handle
them - with multiple processors yes but also with a TB limit on physical
RAM.
>
> Does all that help me read my list mail better? Probably not. At
> least not until I can set up rules that can research questions for me
> automatically and present me with a proven response I can sign and
> click send :)
>
> Rich
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:47 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> The first thing I thought of when I read the announcement that it was
> to test the waters and MS would recall it as a "the person spoke out
> of
turn".
> Then I heard it was Muglia which shored it up quite bit. Now I am
> hearing more in dept info from various places and fully believe that
> MS is definitely intending to do this.
>
> Regardless of what MS or Intel or AMD does, I am not so sure I expect
> the death of 32 bit machines any time soon. They will just go to more
> lower end uses than running a big bad GUI OS. Even if AMD and Intel
> drop production completely, I expect you will see some Chinese/Korean
> Chip manufacturer cranking them out. If at the same price or the 32
> bit was cheaper I would take the MP 32 bit system over a single
> processor
64 bit for a home system.
> I previously bought the 64 bit system to do some eventual testing
> versus thinking it was going to be so much better. I like 64 bit so
> much I am running a 32 bit OS on it. ;o) I expect at some point
> someone will complain that I need to make my tools 64 bit. I don't
> expect it to happen whole hog or probably even at all for quite some time.
>
> Without all of the whizbang GUI stuff, 32 bit is quite fine for many
> many many and let me just say probably most applications. It would be
> for even longer though the push is to go 64 bit because some apps have
> hit ceilings in easy use of the memory they need. 64 bit is about
> memory and available address space for resource allocation, etc. There
> are extended memory schemes available for 32 bit just like there were
> for 16 bit and 8 bit. They are a pain to code around though and no one
> likes to do it. When we go to
> 128 bit procs it will be the same issue, the apps are too fat to
> easily fit in the memory space we have available at the time. I
> wouldn't even be close to being stupid enough to say we won't ever
> need
128 bit...
>
> Who was it that allegedly said "640KB ought to enough for anybody."?
>
>
> For pure speed, multiprocessing, not 64 bit, is where we are and need
> to be going. That also requires extensive work in the coding side of
> things because code not properly written for MP purposes can perform
> very badly in MP machines. This involved coding techniqus and smart
> compilers that can generate good MP code. I have seen some in house
> apps in previous jobs that failed in a stellar fashion once loaded
> onto production MP servers while the test environment was entirely
> single processor. I expect there are folks in software companies who
> have experienced the same with their apps. I also expect we will have
> fun with some 32 bit apps that perform in quite unique ways under 64
> bit. Shouldn't happen, but lots of things that shouldn't happen, do.
> That is just the way this stuff works or else we would all be out of jobs.
>
>
> joe
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> deji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 12:19 AM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> I agree with you. This is one stupid Ώ] business decision that will
> ultimately hurt E12 adoption. We reached the plateau of 5.5 to E2K3
> mass migration a long time ago. Most people still on 5.5 are waiting
> to see "the Next Thing" and we can't seem to move them from their
standoffish position.
> Erecting a roadblock at this point (in the name of 64-bit innovation)
> will create a huge disincentive to the adoption of this "Next Thing".
> The customers have enough reason to not want to adopt new technologies
> "just because......". Now MS is giving them more ammunition to not
> even
bother.
>
> I do not know what this was predicated on. Perhaps MS is going to
> pressure the OEM into abandoning 32-bit machines. Perhaps they will
> succeed, perhaps not. My hope is that this is merely a feeler from MS
> to gauge the industry's reaction to the plan. I am guessing somewhere
> in someone's back pocket is a card that reads "Hehehe....just
> kidding". If those guesses are wrong, then let me hazard one more
> guess - MS is not REALLY interested in getting a lot of people onto
> E12 because E12 is just a transitional platform (like WinME) and will
> be
abandoned as soon as it escapes from the Redmond lab.
>
> OK, maybe I'm seriously wrong on all my guesses. In which case, I
> would have to conclude that someone somewhere is seriously deluded. I
> don't see a lot of customers clamoring for 64-bit. Not yesterday, not
> today, and 95% of the clients I interface with don't have it in their
> 2-year plans. Drawing an imaginary line and proclaiming "64-bit or
> die" will only lead to one outcome
> - a premature death for all the hard work so far invested in E12. In
> the absence of death, MS will surely run into the adoption roadblock
> ΐ] they are currently contending with in the XP space - people see no
> need to move off of Win2K (thank you very much), especially now that
> Vista is looming large.
>
> Ώ] I guess one of the perks of being a partial observer is being able
> to call MS decisions "stupid"
> ΐ] Unlike a lot of people, I get paid to push MS technologies, so I
> have a vested interested in getting maximum adoptions.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Dèjì Akómöláfé, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
> www.readymaids.com - we know IT
> www.akomolafe.com
> Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about
> Yesterday? -anon
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of joe
> Sent: Tue 11/15/2005 6:21 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
>
>
> They aren't dropping backwards compatability, they are dropping a
> platform, this isn't going to clean up security issues or remove some
> nasty functional problem. It is sort of like they dropped the Alpha
> and the PowerPC. They just aren't doing it whole hog for the OS yet.
> You still hear occasional complaints about those being dropped though
> you hear a lot more of "what are those platforms".
>
> It is easier to utilize more memory on 64 bit than on 32 bit. Exchange
> Dev must feel that a lot of their problems will go away going to 64
> bit so that is the decision. Maybe it is true, I think good coding and
> design decisions would go a long way in solving a lot of the problems
> as well, probably help considerably more in fact. 64 bit wouldn't have
> helped the DSACCESS problems, it wouldn't have fixed the security
> design
and AD integration.
> Wouldn't help 9548. Etc. Plus just going 64 bit isn't going to fix
> much of anything I don't think. You start getting "fixes" since they
> are able to use the more and more memory that you throw at it without
> having to use the complicated memory management mechanisms in 32 bit.
> Some might call that covering up the issues versus fixing them. :o)
>
> Windows sucks because it is slow and bloated, oh just buy
> bigger/faster hardware and you are fine... If you can get an older
> version of Windows to run on your newer hardware, try it. It can be
> amazing how fast it is. The hardware companies instead of bitching at
> MS should be paying them dividends and praising them for driving the
hardware industry.
>
> Plus we need the faster bigger memory machines, more stuff is going
.NET....
>
>
> joe
>
>
> ;o)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ActiveDir-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Susan
> Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:37 PM
> To: ActiveDir@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Microsofts Exchange Server 12 64 bit
> announcement
>
> We got SBS 2003 6 months after Windows 2003.
>
> We don't even have Vista yet folks... how relatively short is short to
> you guys?
>
> Vista is possibly Christmas 2006 yes? Server after that...remember
> we're just now getting R2 in late 2005, we'll hit Longhorn in 2007....
> SBS after that.
>
> I find this thread kinda funny... Security folks have argued for MS to
> drop backwards compatibility... Mac's did after all....to get better
security.
> So here they are dropping backwards compatibility for the benefits of
> 64 bit, right? And look at us.... it's business side talking again,
> isn't
it?
>
> More small firms are leasing or buying over time. More small firms
> are looking into hosted solutions...we're tired of the patch it and
> break
it.
>
> 2003 is solid..unlike NT and yet look at the NT still deployed.. And
> when that compelling story of why a business should upgrade occurs
> because of the productivity gains... I'll bet that will push folks.
>
> Hopefully then we can finally rip out all the lanman stuff...ya think?
>
> Do they need to get the migration documentation, guidance ready to
> go...yeah ...that they need to do.
>
> Tomasz Onyszko wrote:
> > joe wrote:
> >> I don't believe Exchange 12 is waiting for Longhorn.
> >>
> >> Also SBS Longhorn is in the scope due to Exchange 12.
> >
> > Yes, You are right - I just replied to Your post where you mentioned
> > specific about longhorn. I don't feel very well with this
> > announcement too. I'm not sure if it is good step especially with
> > exchange 12 which will be released in relatively short time.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days?
> http://www.threatcode.com
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> -------APPLEBEE'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE-------
> PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message
> or
any attachments.
> This information is strictly confidential and may be subject to
> attorney-client privilege. This message is intended only for the use
> of the named addressee. If you are not the intended recipient of this
> message, unauthorized forwarding, printing, copying, distribution, or
> using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
> you have received this in error, you should kindly notify the sender
> by
reply e-mail and immediately destroy this message.
> Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal
criminal law.
> Applebee's International, Inc. reserves the right to monitor and
> review the content of all messages sent to and from this e-mail
> address. Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on
> the
Applebee's International, Inc.
> e-mail system.
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ | | | |
|
|