[email protected] - 27 Jan 2004

EDITOR'S NOTE: Windows & .NET Magazine welcomes feedback from readers about the magazine. Please send comments to letters @winnetmag.com and include your full name, email address, and daytime phone number with your letter. We edit all letters and replies for style, length, and clarity.

Regarding Mark Russinovich's technically detailed and otherwise excellent article Internals: "The Memory-Optimization Hoax" (January 2004, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 41095), which debunks memory "optimization" utilities, I have just one comment: Free memory is the enemy of true performance.

This statement might strike many computer users as ridiculous, but with explanation it makes sense. Mark's article touches on this concept but then buries it under technicalities. If my OS isn't using all its memory, it's not using my machine to full capacity. Yes, a small portion of memory must remain unallocated to give the system room to work in, but all the rest of the memory should be used. I'm not referring to a situation such as running the system at near-maximum capacity and filling the entire virtual memory subsystem with a data set. I'm referring to modern, lightly loaded systems with large amounts of excess physical RAM that under usual circumstances will never be completely used. Ideally, the OS should use such excess RAM for caching, reallocating it only as needed. If the OS aggressively frees memory for some unknown future need, then data that the OS could have retrieved from RAM will instead require a disk read, incurring a massive performance penalty.

I became aware of this counterintuitive concept when I began to use FreeBSD. I learned from a Usenet thread that near 100 percent memory usage is not only "normal" but indicative of a properly working system. Now, I measure an OS not only by how much memory it keeps free but also by how much it uses. I realize that the situation is a bit more complicated than I've described, but my point is that free memory is not your friend. You paid good money for your RAM. Do you really want it to be unused?

—Henry Mason
[email protected]

I agree that an OS's job is to give memory to processes running on a system so that the processes can run efficiently and that this job requires using all physical memory. However, as I stated in my article, the Windows Memory Manager allocates memory by effectively using all "free" memory for cached file data, which the standby list stores. The Memory Manager uses this system to assign to certain processes only the memory they actually need so that other processes can get the memory that they actually need. One way the Memory Manager accomplishes this goal is by taking memory away from a process that doesn't need it and placing the unneeded memory on the standby list. If that process requests data from the standby list, it receives the data immediately; however, the memory demands of other processes might require that they also take memory from the standby list. The standby list serves as the file-system and paging-file cache, and even though memory on the list is considered "available," it's nevertheless actively used and therefore doesn't fit Henry's definition of free memory.

—Mark Russinovich

SBS 2003
I'm disappointed with Michael Otey's article "SBS 2003 Overview" (December 2003, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 40708). The author doesn't seem overly familiar with Microsoft Small Business Server (SBS) 2003 and the way it works. First, he states that you can configure the Exchange POP3 connector to retrieve email from Hotmail.com and MSN.com. Aside from the fact that Hotmail.com and MSN.com are one and the same, you can't use POP3 to retrieve email from these types of Web-based email services. These services want you to have to go to their site to read your email so that they can present you with advertising. Otherwise, what's the point of offering free email services?

Second, the article omits mentioning Terminal Services in SBS 2003. The version of Windows Server 2003 that comes with SBS 2003 won't go into application mode. I've confirmed this fact with Microsoft and have experienced it firsthand. Windows 2003 in SBS 2003 will work in admin mode, but the function is restricted to two users with Administrator rights. Microsoft wants you to purchase a second server, with a second Windows 2003 license, to run Terminal Services in SBS 2003. This is a major "gotcha" in SBS 2003 and not a well-known one. Microsoft justifies this requirement as being necessary for security because the SBS server is a domain controller (DC). However, you can switch any other Windows 2003 server that's also a DC into application mode. In my opinion, this restriction in SBS 2003 is unfair. Many small businesses are interested in remote access. Given that SBS 2003 is targeted at the Value Added Resellers (VARs) and Value Added Providers (VAPs) that support these small businesses, those VARs and VAPs should be making the decisions about what is or isn't secure in an SBS 2003 installation.

Third, how can the author recommend small office/home office (SOHO)–level firewalls while also stating that a small business doesn't really need Microsoft Internet Security and Acceleration (ISA) Server 2000? These boxes do very little to stop real intrusions from the Internet, plus they have little or none of the other features that ISA Server 2000 includes. The price of ISA Server as bundled with SBS 2003 is a bargain, and the product is excellent.

Finally, a point that's important to include in any article about SBS is that if you approach the upper user limit (75 users in SBS 2003), you'll need a hefty server to service all the users, unless all they do is type Microsoft Word documents and send and receive only a handful of email messages every day. In past SBS versions, the 75-user limit has applied to user logons, not to the number of users you can set up in Active Directory (AD). You can set up 500 users if you want, but only 75 can log on to SBS at the same time.

—Walter Muma
[email protected]

Walter is correct that Hotmail.com doesn't have a POP connector and therefore wasn't the best example of a POP mail provider. However, he's mistaken about MSN.com's ability to support POP. I get mail through POP from MSN.com every day. In any case, the point is that SBS 2003's POP connector can and does retrieve mail from POP accounts.

Walter is also correct that SBS 2003 doesn't support Terminal Services application mode. I didn't mention that in my article because I don't consider it a major shortcoming in SBS 2003, which isn't designed to function as an application server. I believe there are two reasons why Microsoft didn't design SBS 2003 to be an application server. First, the system is targeted toward smaller businesses, which are unlikely to require Terminal Services. Second, a potential performance problem exists when you run Terminal Services applications on a system that also runs Microsoft Exchange Server, file and print services, and DNS and functions as a DC. If you want to run Terminal Services in application mode, I think you're better off getting a second server.

Regarding ISA Server, I didn't intend to recommend that businesses don't use SBS 2003 Premium Edition, which includes ISA Server. I believe that firewalls are necessary, and ISA Server includes a good firewall. If your business doesn't have a firewall, SBS 2003 Premium Edition would be a good value. However, many standalone firewall products can provide protection that's as good as or better than the protection ISA Server provides. Most businesses that I'm familiar with already have firewall products in place. For those businesses, little will be gained with a second firewall.

My article does state that SBS 2003 is licensed for use on a single server. It also addresses the 75-user limit.

—Michael Otey

Necessary Unnecessary Services
I'd like to pass along a tip regarding disabling one of the services mentioned in Michael Otey's article Top 10: "Unneeded Services in Windows XP" (January 2004, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 40722). When I turned off the TCP/IP NetBIOS Helper service, I discovered that I could no longer add groups or users in Active Directory (AD).

—Theresa Baldwin
[email protected]

OOPS
In Jeremy Moskowitz's Buyer's Guide: "Change and Configuration Management Tools" (January 2004, http://www.winnetmag.com, InstantDoc ID 41097), an incorrect toll phone number was listed for ManageSoft. The correct number is 617-532-1600.

In the "Change and Configuration Management Tools" product table, two vendor names were dropped from the contact information that accompanies each product listing. Novadigm is the vendor to contact for Radia Management Suite, and ScriptLogic is the vendor to contact for ScriptLogic 5.0. We apologize for any inconvenience these errors might have caused.