Hi guys! I have the following situation: One Server Machine ( with Exchange 2003 and SQL Server 2005). The Exchange 2003 Server is located at office 1 is shyncronizing the mailboxes with another installed on office 2. The users complain that acessing to the SQL data bases at office 1 from office is too slow. How can i measure the consume of bandwith of this shynchronization? It is good idea installing the Exchange Server with SQL Server? Best Regards, Rui Figueiredo

Nop, I would never recommend Exchange + SQL on same server, both product are resource hungry so definitely you would get performance problem.Amit Tank | MVP Exchange Server | MCITP: EMA | MCSA: M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com

It's never a good idea to run Exchange Server and other server applications -- SQL Server, for instance -- on the same machine. Exchange Server was designed to use as much physical memory as there is available on the server. This isn't a defect of its design; it is quite deliberate. When it comes to servers, unused memory is wasted memory. So having Exchange Server use as much physical memory as possible is simply a way to get the most out of the hardware on which it's running. To that end, Microsoft has suggestions on how to optimize memory usage for Exchange Server 2003. But, those suggestions are meant to maximize Exchange Server's behavior on systems with 3 GB of memory or more -- not to force it to coexist with other server applications that are equally aggressive with memory. (Note that the memory usage suggestions just apply to Exchange Server 2003. Exchange Server 2007, which is only supported in its 64-bit version, can directly address a good deal more memory than 32-bit editions. So, in theory, it shouldn't need to be tweaked like Exchange 2003 to improve performance.) Vinod |CCNA|MCSE 2003 +Messaging|MCTS|ITIL V3|

Microsoft doesn't recommend Exchange and SQL on the same servers.Andrew Sword, MVP