General discussion


Microsoft Exchange Server 2000 Problem

By R. A. Caluste ·
Just recently, our users in the intranet have been complaining about the behavior of the Microsoft Outlook when, from time to time, it displays "Requesting data from Microsoft Exchange Server". It will timeout and eventually freeze.

At first, I thought it was purely a DNS issue when several clients cannot resolve the server hostname. That has been fixed already but the problem remains.

I checked out several knowledge bases and came across issues with disabled accounts (that's been fixed by giving rights to self), black hole router (complaints are coming from within the intranet, same network segment as the exchange server).

Access to OWA at this stage (since nobody can open MS Outlook) is also a failure.

Also at this point Dismounting the private mailbox store (hoping to run isinteg.exe) will stop at 66% and freeze.

When trying to restart the Microsoft Exchange Information Store service, status will remain to "stopping" and will never reach the "stopped" status.

Running the Performance Monitor before the problem yields the following observations (during the time the mail service fails):

Microsoft Exchange RPC request = 2 (across time!)
Microsoft Exchange RPC operations/sec = 0

Network bytes received/sent, %Processor Time, Paging is normal.

Looking at the Event Log, I usually see 7011 events.. DNS and BINLSVC both times out waiting for a transaction response. Netlogon returns a warning: Dynamic registration of DNS records fail because no DNS servers are available.

Running a Netdiag /v /test:dns will yield a PASSED report for the dns server. Further verification at the DNS snap-in will yield an online and active DNS server.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by D.Andrew.Eagle In reply to Microsoft Exchange Server ...


I have seen the same error on most of our client machines at some point. We use Exchange 2000 and the Citrix Metaframe XP environment for our users.
Our messages wording is identical, but has a progress bar which completes and the machine carries on afterwards fine. It also has the option not to show this message again. It usually occurs at the point where our users start complaining that our network has slowed right down, usually because someone is copying a large file between servers, and at the point where they drag and drop an email to another folder or hit the Send button.

Our exchange server has reached its 16Gig limit, however I have managed to halt the flow of event logs informing me of this by doing some mailbox housekeeping.

We often get event log entries as below:
Information Store (404 The database W:\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.edb has reached its maximum size of 16382 MB. If the database cannot be restarted, an offline defragmentation may be performed to reduce its size.

We also get the below event log entry fairly often:
The virtual memory necessary to run your Exchange server is fragmented in such a way that normal operation may begin to fail. It is highly recommended that you restart all Exchange services to correct this issue

My initial thoughts are that these error messages are generated because of poorly maintained exchange databases, specifically so bad that the performance is severely degraded.

Is it possible you've hit your limit as well? Are you running exchange 2000 enterprise? If no, it would explain why you may have trouble dismounting and restarting the information stores.

This may or may not help. In a selfish way I hope it doesn't, if it does I have a feeling our fate will be along the lines of yours very soon...


Collapse -

by R. A. Caluste In reply to

Thank you for your suggestion.

Collapse -

by I_IZHAUT In reply to Microsoft Exchange Server ...

Put up a packet capture box and ICMP traffic find out where broadcasts are echoing (if so) and make sure by MAC addressing NOT ip and fix it or turn off that one for now if not necessary Now if DNS works you can fix flurry that prevents you!

Collapse -

by R. A. Caluste In reply to

Poster rated this answer.

Collapse -

by carquiza In reply to Microsoft Exchange Server ...

Hi R.A.,

Check your nework cards and cables. If not the software you can always blame it on the hardware?

Don't expect so much on software performance wise
hardware should count first.

Collapse -

by R. A. Caluste In reply to

Poster rated this answer.

Collapse -

by kiddanger In reply to Microsoft Exchange Server ...

Hi Ronald...

Sorry you have had so much trouble with E2K. I have worked with XCH since it's inception and yes, E2K is a different beast. I have found that ESEUTIL is not a complete fix. I usually have to run a repair and a defrag to solve severe issues such as yours.

Is your XCH behind a firewall? Are you using Exchange with AD? Do you have internal and external domains?

private -
public -

Is XCH on a member server or a DC?
Is DNS running on the Primary DC? If not, why not?
If there is a private DNS on the Primary DC, is the public DNS able to accept dynamic entries?

Are the clients pointing to the internal domain first, then public?

Are DNS records for clients provided by DHCP? Is the DHCP running on a router or W2K?

All of these need to work together. Separate your domains by private and public. Point clients to see private DNS entries first, then public. Public DNS servers should never include any internal (private) records.

If your server has no DNS issues, perhaps it's not the server but the clients?!

Collapse -

by R. A. Caluste In reply to

Thank you for your suggestion.

Collapse -

by Maity-boy In reply to Microsoft Exchange Server ...

Had a similar problem in 5.5 recently and tracked it down to the fact that the MSBlast Virus uses port 135. Exchange also uses this port to comunicate between servers. |In the end our ISP closed port 135 for users not requiring it. This has helped but with all the virus traffic still flooding the internet its still a bit sluggish. Are you on a corporate network and are you properly patched , AV Protected.

Collapse -

by R. A. Caluste In reply to

Poster rated this answer.

Related Discussions

Related Forums