I recently (hopefully recently, my last post took two years to get published so I'm not sure when this one will go out, LOL) posted one of my typical light-hearted looks into life at Microsoft (it was about how office space is allocated, read it here). Although it was irrelevant to virtually everything, it elicited many interesting responses, including people complaining (I think) about us having it too good here. No argument there. Actually, I was intentionally portraying the situation in a negative light so as not to upset everyone too much. In reality, we all have 1000 square foot corner window offices (our office buildings were designed by MC Escher) that overlook a lake or mountains (our choice), with a private bathroom, a fold out bed for nap time, and a full service kitchen. But never mind that. There were also many comments on the feature set of Exchange 2007 (rather irrelevant to the pointless topic, but important nevertheless). They were mostly not liking certain feature take-backs in the release, particularly around the administrative GUI. I just want everyone to know that despite the light tone here, we do take these comments seriously. Let me assure you that the discussion that my post prompted generated many a transaction log on our corporate Exchange servers!! Some of you that have been reading our blog for a long time may have noticed that we have taken a very open position regarding the comments that we get on our blog posts. I believe that there were only 2 or 3 cases when we deleted a comment and that was because of some really inappropriate language. We want to keep your comments there, both positive and negative. We read every single one of them and respond to many. We do want to encourage you to post your opinions and ideas, but we do have ask something: if there is an area that is very upsetting to you or where you think we made a mistake, we ask that you would offer criticism about the product, and not the people who work on it. Also, since we actively look to these comments as evidence to make potential changes in our products, we again ask that you would provide specific, actionable feedback on our product. In other words, please explain what it is that bothers you and why it bothers you. What are you trying to accomplish that you can't? Sometimes the comments are obvious (we totally and completely get it that you need more GUI and it's unfortunate we weren't able to get as much of it in to E2K7 RTM as we'd hoped, but we hope that SP1 works better for you there), but sometimes they are not, so the more you explain your user scenario, the better a chance we'll be able to eventually do something about it. In closing, I'd just like to point out the obvious that every product that has ever shipped anywhere has had to make trade-offs between shipping on time, shipping with quality, and shipping with the right features. For Exchange 2007, we debated long and hard about features that we would ship. We had to balance investments that we wanted to make into the Exchange code base to allow for future innovation (would people be interested in a description of those architectural bets? Or if we posted it, would we just get more "you should have done <my feature foo>" instead? :), feature cuts we felt we had to make to get the quality we wanted to ship with and the timeline we felt it needed to ship in. We knew some of the cuts would be painful, and we have addressed many of the larger issues in SP1 (some posts on this coming your way, by the way!). Judging from the early success of Exchange 2007 sales, the many positive reviews we've garnered, and most customer feedback, we seem to have made some pretty good choices here. But obviously - not perfect. We always need to try to do better. I look forward to the responses this post may receive, and rest assured there are lots of people in Exchange who will be paying attention to them, as with all our posts on this blog. Thank you for coming back and caring enough to comment! - Jon Avner, Nino Bilic
Blog Post
60 Comments
- DeletedI'd like to second the OWA comment. OWA should be OWA on all reasonably current browsers (something like IE6/7+, Safari 3+, Firefox 2+) *not* OWA light
From the client perspective this is the most glaring issue -- it's an AJAX world and this ought to be an achievable goal. If it was a timing issue I can understand; if it was something else, then get on it right away! :-)
// mf - DeletedI thought of another one. This is a long shot, but bundle all the prereq's together to get a basic console install. When I try to setup the console only on a PC, I have to install powershell, mmc, .Net2, .Net2sp1, usually some hotfixes, then EMC.
Just bundle the basics and ask to look for updates when I'm done. - DeletedAnother comment... outbound Faxing please! We'd love to reduce our complexity and get rid of our current 3rd party solution for faxing. I've been told before MSFT doesn't want to push its own partners out of the fax market, but we'd much prefer it was integrated. Thanks! :)
- DeletedI would like to see a vast improvement of migration tools. We deploy several Exchange servers each year and have been reluctant to deploy many Exchange 2007 servers due to a lack of GUI tools like Exmerge or any tools that could allow you to move mailboxes from separate domains (we deal with smaller networks where forklifting out an old Exchange server / domain is something we do from time to time). The amount of work it takes to get the cli Exmerge going (installation of management tools - 32bit - on another workstations + all the patches / apps needed) is just ridiculous. We want to widely adopt Exchange 2007, we really do! Make it easier for us.
- DeletedNewbie to Exch2007 so please forgive this question. Can I configure the send/receive times for users? (Ex. no emails received until 4:00pm.) Thanks
- DeletedThanks lorennerol,
That sounds a lot like what I'm seeing. My machine is a VM and a test environment, but the symptoms seem identical. I've never let mine get to the point of blue screening, perhaps I'll try that.
The frustrating thing it trying to figure out what is taking all the RAM. Like you, no single process shows much memory usage, but the system itself thinks it's completely out of memory.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Oh, and I didn't say it in my first post, but thanks to the Exchange folks for the blog in general and this thread in particular and for all their hard work! - DeletedQuote:
<* Even with SP1 installed, there seems to be a massive memory leak, at least in a single-server environment. I'm waiting on hold with PSS to get this sorted out right now (and yes, I have the aforementioned hotfix installed).
I'm seeing this, too. Server with Hub, Cas, and Mailbox role. Commited RAM will rise, rise, rise, but there is no indication what is taking the RAM. Did PSS give you any info?>
I spent five hours on the phone with the Windows Server support group last night. I'm not 100% sure it is an Exchange issue, so I decided it was better to start with the Windows group and move over if my hunch is verified. Some background:
- This is a single-server environment. Technically there is still an Exchange 2003 server, but all the roles are installed on the Exch2007 box.
- The box is a dual-proc, dual core 3.0 Xeon with 8GB of RAM hosting about 30 mailboxes. It's also a DC and runs SQL 2005 Standard (the production DB is small- <200MB).
- When it's 'freshly' started it runs as expected.
Over a period of a week or two it gradually slows down. If I ignore the calls from the users that the accounting apps (uses SQL) is slow, the box will eventually bugcheck/bluescreen. I got this call yesterday and when I got there the task manager process list show store.exe using less than 400MB RAM and sqlserv.exe using only 115MB. Nothing else was over 100MB. It showed only 1GB RAM available, but the total RAM in use on the process list was no where near 7GB, so RAM is getting 'lost' somewhere.
What is happening is that the page file fills up, the server slows, and eventually, if I don't manually reboot, becomes unresponsive and then bluescreens.
PSS had me bump up the page file (to 1.5xRAM), setup a couple very granular counters in perfmon, and change the registry to get a full memory dump, rather than just a kernel dump. I uploaded the last kernel dump and the result of the reporting tool they had me run. They are analyzing the data and I am monitoring the server to see if the larger page file fixes the problem or just prolongs the period during which the server runs 'normally'.
So there is a small chance it is fixed, but most likely it's not and we're gathering a better set of data from which to make a diagnosis the next time it happens. I'll post back if/when I get more info.
L
PS- Rereading my previous post I see that I said my two biggest issues were actually three :) - DeletedCriticism?
Yo mama sooooo fat....
Just kidding... :)
CV - Deleted* Even with SP1 installed, there seems to be a massive memory leak, at least in a single-server environment. I'm waiting on hold with PSS to get this sorted out right now (and yes, I have the aforementioned hotfix installed).
I'm seeing this, too. Server with Hub, Cas, and Mailbox role. Commited RAM will rise, rise, rise, but there is no indication what is taking the RAM. Did PSS give you any info?
Anyway, a couple of points of feedback:
1. Cluster support is too clunky. You do some things in Cluster administrator, some things in Powershell/Exchange GUI. Couldn't you find a way to consolidate?
2. Attributes that were in E2k3 GUI that are missing in E2k7 GUI. Most notably, mailbox size and number of items in mailbox.
3. I'll also second the certificate management confusion. Perhaps it's just because it's new, but it seems much more difficult to know what certs are where and how/where to apply new certs.
- DeletedI would like to see a post detailing those "architectural bets". I would like to better understand those decisions. In fact I would like to more of those posts from all of the product teams.