The system performance of the server becomes severely decreased when you try to copy files from a server that is running Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008 through a network


  • Hello,

    We had issue with Windows 2008 R2 that The system performance of the server becomes severely decreased once Exchange Database generate replication traffic to remote host even though we have gbits connection over WAN (Exchange server used 99% of physical memory on remote data center, while local center that hosts 5000 mailboxes only use 96% of physical memory . I did some search and found this:

    The system performance of the server becomes severely decreased when you try to copy files from a server that is running Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008 through a network;EN-US;971442&wa=wsignin1.0

    This link is for Window 2008. I experience the exactly same issue with Windows 2008 R2 SP1. Is there any hotfix for Windows 2008 R2?

    Thanks in advance!

    Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:06 PM

All replies

  • Hi, I does not think that hotfix will apply. It's for SMB file copy, while you are triing to use the Exchange Replication mechanism. (

    Please make sure it's not the store.exe that use 99% of the memory too. As it's normal that the store use it all. (it give back the memory to the system when in need) The KB list that it's the system process that hold the memory.

    First, what version of Exchange you use and what replication mechanism you use ? I would tend to direct the post to an exchange forum after.

    Because at first I could ask.

    Do you use a DAG ? (post like that might help , )

    If you use Exchange 2007, then what you use ? CCR, SCR, SCC ( ??


    Thanks, and please give us more detail

    MCP | MCTS 70-236: Exchange Server 2007, Configuring
    Microsoft Translator Widget - French moderator (Technet Wiki)

    Twitter - @yagmoth555 ()
    Blog: |

    Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:48 AM
  • Hello,

    hotfixes from earlier OS versions are implemented in newer OS versions.

    Please see the specific performance update here

    Best regards

    Meinolf Weber
    Microsoft MVP - Directory Services
    My Blog:

    Disclaimer: This posting is provided AS IS with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights.

    Wednesday, July 24, 2013 8:20 AM
  • thank you both for reply...

    It's Exchange 2010 with DAG. I posted the issue on Exchange forum, however, it seems it's OS memory management issue. Four Exchange servers hardware and software are identical.

    I use process explorer to compare working set total memory and private bytes

    remote two servers have lower working set usage, however available physical memory only about 1 GB. Local two servers has higher working set usage, however they constantly have about 10 GB available physical memory and never run issue even once I move all active mailboxes to local servers from remote, these two local servers can handle memory efficiently (around 5 GB available memory once they hosts all active DB on them).

    Total physical memory 96 GB 

    Local servers    total Private Bytes 89,530,704 Kb total Working set 88,594,948  Kb     

    remote servers total Private Bytes 89,949,304 Kb total Working set 86,978,604 Kb

    Once I tried to run RAMMAP on the remote servers, it generated lots of page activity, page halts /per sec constantly reached 100. I had no choice but log out my session to kill the RAMMAP process, after that memory usage was squeezed to have about more than 10 GB available physical memory, about 10 hours later, available physical memory became 1 GB again.

    I know store.exe will use as much memory the system available. Question is why both local servers have more available physical memory (10 GB) vs. 1 GB on remote servers) though local servers have more active mailbox load (2500 each) than remote (500 each) thought all servers has exactly the same DBs that replicates each other (in other word, local servers will generate more log files and replicate to remote servers than remote servers do). I have done some search and found the 2008 KB, it seems that makes sense to me.


    Wednesday, July 24, 2013 2:33 PM
  • it turned out installed .net framework not matched issue. Local servers have .net version 4.0 installed, while remote servers .net version 3.5.1installed . After we installed .net 4.0 on remote servers, everything looks OK now. Both remote servers have available 10 GB physical memory constantly.
    Monday, July 29, 2013 12:54 PM