Server Requirements -

[kmkeen71]

Hello,

I'm obviosly new with Scalix - I'm looking for some feedback regarding minimum system requirments.

I understand the requirments per the documentation - but I wanted to find out if anyone has installed Scalix on less than optimal system requirements and still had good results (decent response time via web interface).

If you did use sub-par requirements would you mind shareing what they were (only if the end result was decent).

Thanks,

[jonny]

Hey mate

My test server was a Compaq P3 800 DeskPro w. 256mb Ram, 20Gb HDD - Ran okay, but very slow when doing remote Outlook access.

YMMV.

Jonny.

[florian]

Hi J,

while this _might_ work given enough swap space, things might get funky and processes might even get terminate; I would feel that the absolute usable minimum would probably be like 384 MB, and that only if no X windows is running on the server.

However, note that the published minimum system requirement for a supported installation is 512 MB.

-- Fl.orian.

[kanderson]

This will depend completely on the number of users.

RAM will matter far more tham processor. I'd say start with 256 as an absolute bare min, the recommendation for 512 is not a bad one, particularly if you'll have IMAP (which means WEB) connected users, who clearly work the system harder than POP or MAPI.

The webclient gets more feature rich with every version, and that leaves Tomcat using more and more RAM. I think it would be a poor choice to go with less than 512 Meg.

Having said that, I helped set up a test once with a P3 500 with 192 Megs of RAM. It ran reasonably well for testing, but it obviously wasn't going to work for production, and that was at least a year ago.

[florian]

and again, just to reconfirm, anything less than 512 MB does NOT result in a configuration supported/supportable by Scalix....

:-) Pls don't be me up on this one, but given the current street price .....

Cheers,
Florian.

[kanderson]

Also, if you're testing on an old piece of crap box because you want to confirm that things work, that's fine, but remember, it is unwise to take an old box into production even if it is supported.

I have an older Proliant with a Gig of ram, and all the horsepower it would need in order to run in the production environment. But after 7 or 8 years, I also have a box full of parts that are all end of life, Fans that are very well worn, HDDs that are well worn, slow IO backplanes, etc.

It doesn't make sense to use an old box in production. As much as it's fun to brag about getting Scalix to run on a potato powered server (http://d116.com/spud/ And, yes I know it isn't running Scalix), the reality is, you are doing a disservice to yourself, Scalix and Linux generally by intentionally setting up a box which is unmaintainable and almost certain to fail. Frankly, $2500 spent now will be easily recovered even against just the idea of needing to do a hardware upgrade 2 years down the road vs 5 years down the road. Your users will be thankful for better performance, and you'll be able to talk about how much better the Linux solution is than Windows. (Look at the requirements for Longhorn)

Hardware is relatively cheap. It is the wrong place to save money.

Also, even for testing, I'd advise using the server you'd like to take into production. You will generally find that "since this box is working, lets just stick with it" is a VERY difficult attitude to defeat. And it's also the first thing the suits forget saying when you say "Gee, I just upgraded the kernel, and the RAID driver no longer supports the 10 year old PERC card we had in our server. So now the box doesn't boot anymore. I'll call in an overpriced consultant to help me fix it, but for now, you have no email."

Trust me, I'm the consultant, and I have recieved had this call. So have MANY others. It was a megaraid driver in a Dell server with an old PERC card. It's a great box, does everything they need and then some. But they paid a big price when they upgraded their server and it wouldn't boot afterward.