I'm trying to use this calculator and I know that having Outlook clients that are not using cached mode will have an effect the number of IOPS required. Am I correct in understanding that the setting, "Desktop Search Engines Enabled (for Online Mode Clients)" on the Input tab is the same as "cached mode"? If so, an answer of "yes" to that setting is the same as not being in cached mode, correct? Is the "Recommended RAM Configuration" setting on the Role Requirements worksheet the total amount of RAM a multi-role server should have, or just the RAM recommended for the database cache? Per the Understanding the Mailbox Database Cache page, it looks like it could be the latter. Thanks.

Am I correct in understanding that the setting, "Desktop Search Engines Enabled (for Online Mode Clients)" on the Input tab is the same as "cached mode"? If so, an answer of "yes" to that setting is the same as not being in cached mode, correct? No, it is not same. it refers desktop search engines like google and others. In 2003 atleast there were huge performance issues when google desktop search engine was used and caused more RPC requests. 2. Is the "Recommended RAM Configuration" setting on the Role Requirements worksheet the total amount of RAM a multi-role server should have, or just the RAM recommended for the database cache? Per the Understanding the Mailbox Database Cache page, it looks like it could be the latter. RAM a multi-role server should have, if you selected multi role on the input worksheet.

Great, so if I don't put my Outlook 2003 clients into cached mode, what effect does that have on the disk subsystem's required IOPS? I expect it would be higher, but I don't see anywhere to indicate cached/non cached in the calculator.

Hi mhashemi. About how to understand the exchange search, if you are planning the exchagne 2010, you could refer to below: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb232132.aspx Online mode would use the exchange server search, and it maybe affact the performance of the exchange server, but in my opinion, it is not needed to consider the element. About how to do the mailbox requirement calculator, refer to below: http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2009/11/09/3408737.aspx And if you will use exchange 2010, I would not suggest to use the outlook 2003 in the scenario. Regards! Gavin TechNet Subscriber Support in forum If you have any feedback on our support, please contact tngfb@microsoft.com Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.

Ha! Thanks, but we won't be leaving Outlook 2003 any time soon :)

Hi mhashemi, Ha!, ok, depends on you. :) It is better choice, you know. Regards! Gavin TechNet Subscriber Support in forum If you have any feedback on our support, please contact tngfb@microsoft.com Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread.