| Outlook on Win Terminal Server - something else than OFF possible? [message #140422] |
Thu, 19 July 2018 12:14  |
 |
p0ddie
Messages: 43
Registered: May 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I have a Win 2008 Terminal Server with 25 clients, each client has its own Kerio Connect account.
Is it somehow possible to not have the Kerio connector for Outlook cache all the files in the user's profile? Like the online connector did years ago? Is there a better solution for terminal servers?
Thanks 
|
|
|
|
| Re: Outlook on Win Terminal Server - something else than OFF possible? [message #140424 is a reply to message #140422] |
Thu, 19 July 2018 16:23  |
Maerad
Messages: 275
Registered: August 2013
|
|
|
|
You might wanna take a look at my old post about that:
http://forums.kerio.com/m/108341/19566/c513eff88099437f5e979 1a60b4a9412/#msg_108341
If you only have one TS, the best way is to get a SSD with enough space for all the users. In your case maybe a 250 GB SSD, I got around 80-100 GB used with 20 Users right now.
You wont need Raid at all, add the SDD, change the user cache folder (see my link) and be done. It's fast as hell for all users and the SSD usage (data written) is really low, so a simple SSD would be enough, but get something with MLC chips. Like a Samsung Pro.
Data written is a joke and my SSD from 2013 still runs in the server without problems.
My SSD from 2013 (Samsung 840 Pro) 128 GB was used with up to 30 users for some time and I got a new server like one month ago. So my SSD stats: 38141 hours running, turned on 99 times, written data 4104 GB and no bad blocks at all. IF I read crystaldiskinfo the right way
Best thing about this is, that you can restart the mailserver or do something else, without the users noticing at all, because of the cache itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Outlook on Win Terminal Server - something else than OFF possible? [message #140427 is a reply to message #140425] |
Thu, 19 July 2018 17:19 |
Maerad
Messages: 275
Registered: August 2013
|
|
|
|
I do the same, but still use an additional SSD, so I keep the size and usage in check of the main NVMe. Also the SSD is not included in replica or backup. If it fails, I add another storage and sync again. Also you could add data deduplication or compression to the disk. With deduplication I had some really nice experiences for the cache.
Do you use Server 2012 (R2) with HyperV by chance? My new server runs 2 Samsung 870 PRO NVMe and I added them to a space pool with microsofts storage spaces. After that I created a virtual disk with them in mirror mode. Even with full usage the CPU used for it is not even measureable. Like a raid but way more flexible, supports trim and other stuff. And because the NVMe run without cache no problems with power loss (aside from the USV). So even with replica, I would prefer if the main server still runs - it's simply a lot faster.
Best part is the read rate goes up - 6 GB/s right now 
Some Admin collegues I know told me how I could do that, because consumer SSD and so on, but the server SSD are not different and they had a test a short time ago with TLC, SLC and MLC memory - SLC and MLC made no difference in life time, data written and so on.
I love it - and the users too.
[Updated on: Thu, 19 July 2018 17:21] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: Outlook on Win Terminal Server - something else than OFF possible? [message #140428 is a reply to message #140427] |
Thu, 19 July 2018 17:29 |
|
p0ddie
Messages: 43
Registered: May 2008
Location: Berlin, Germany
|
|
|
|
The guest terminal server is a 2008 R2. The hyper-v server is a 2016 Datacenter with a PCI-E NVMe (~1200MB/S read/write, gazillions of I/O) that is replicated to the second, older server with a 2*1TB hardware RAID 1 of Samsung Evo 860 SSDs. They're faster than the 840 Pro I had in there before. I can't complain about the performance
I tried to keep this setup as simple, stupid and understandable as possible because I am not on site most of the time and if I ever need to send some "remote hands" there they need to deal with stuff that's not complicated.
I'll consider using your method to send the data to a yet separate ssd, it would slim down backups a little
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
