Skip to main content

Exchange Server Needs Proactive Monitoring

Praveen Manohar

A major chunk of communication in an organization happens via email and any downtime in email can impact productivity and revenue. This is why availability and performance of Microsoft Exchange is vital for an organization that uses it.

To maintain uptime of Microsoft Exchange, it's essential that performance and availability is continuously monitored. But what are the parameters that have to be monitored? Here are some issues that can affect your exchange server performance and the parameters that need to be monitored to avoid those issues.

Storage Performance

As an IT admin, you would have seen cases where Microsoft Outlook users experience poor performance while trying to fetch emails from the exchange server. Storage Performance, i.e. input/output operations per second (IOPS), on the exchange server could be the culprit here. This is because IOPS defines how fast data - in our case email data - can be written to or read from the storage. Monitoring the performance of the Exchange storage lets you know of possible performance issues that can have an effect on mail fetching or sending.

RPC Threads

Do you often get support calls with users complaining that Outlook is unable to connect to their mailbox? One cause for this can be unavailability of Remote Procedure Call (RPC) threads. Outlook client connects using RPC threads to the Exchange server to perform operations, such as sending and receiving email, creating appointments, meetings and tasks, and so on. There's a limit in the number of available RPC threads on an Exchange server.

In cases where all RPC threads get used up, Outlook client automatically retries the connection until RPC threads are available making the user action slow. You can make RPC counters, such as RPC Requests, RPC operations/sec and RPC Averaged Latency counters throw alerts when the permitted limit is crossed by monitoring them. And once you receive an alert, you can restart the Exchange RPC Client Access service to free up RPC threads.

Something else is that an increase in the usage of RPC threads can also cause a bottleneck on the server’s resources, (RAM and CPU) thereby slowing down the server itself.

Replication

Data loss incidents, such as file corruption, water damage, human error, and so on can occur in an organization. All organizations should foresee these undesirable incidents and they need a database backup.

Most organizations run Exchange with the replication feature. This feature from Microsoft Exchange Server enables high availability for the Exchange Server's database. But just having this feature in your Exchange Server is not enough, ensuring the proper operation of replication is needed. An improper or fractional database backup is as bad as not having a backup at all. Thus copy status, copy queue, and replay queue for both the active and passive copies of all mailbox databases should be monitored to ensure there's no failure looming.

Further, replication status check is essential for factors like Active Manager, Cluster Service, and Replay Service, etc.

Storage Limits

When storage used to be expensive, Exchange admins used to limit the size of the mailbox storage. But now, because of cheaper storage space many admins decide not to have storage limits. This can cause the database size to grow and further on cause issues, such as a backup failure or increased restore time. Thus it is recommended to limit the mailbox size to minimize the time needed for data restore and reduce the probability of backup failure. Monitoring the mailbox size helps check if the applied rules for maintaining the mailbox size is operational.

Detailed monitoring and proper alerting for the above mentioned counters will help you take action before most undesirable events happen or get out of hand.

Praveen Manohar is a Head Geek at SolarWinds.

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...

Exchange Server Needs Proactive Monitoring

Praveen Manohar

A major chunk of communication in an organization happens via email and any downtime in email can impact productivity and revenue. This is why availability and performance of Microsoft Exchange is vital for an organization that uses it.

To maintain uptime of Microsoft Exchange, it's essential that performance and availability is continuously monitored. But what are the parameters that have to be monitored? Here are some issues that can affect your exchange server performance and the parameters that need to be monitored to avoid those issues.

Storage Performance

As an IT admin, you would have seen cases where Microsoft Outlook users experience poor performance while trying to fetch emails from the exchange server. Storage Performance, i.e. input/output operations per second (IOPS), on the exchange server could be the culprit here. This is because IOPS defines how fast data - in our case email data - can be written to or read from the storage. Monitoring the performance of the Exchange storage lets you know of possible performance issues that can have an effect on mail fetching or sending.

RPC Threads

Do you often get support calls with users complaining that Outlook is unable to connect to their mailbox? One cause for this can be unavailability of Remote Procedure Call (RPC) threads. Outlook client connects using RPC threads to the Exchange server to perform operations, such as sending and receiving email, creating appointments, meetings and tasks, and so on. There's a limit in the number of available RPC threads on an Exchange server.

In cases where all RPC threads get used up, Outlook client automatically retries the connection until RPC threads are available making the user action slow. You can make RPC counters, such as RPC Requests, RPC operations/sec and RPC Averaged Latency counters throw alerts when the permitted limit is crossed by monitoring them. And once you receive an alert, you can restart the Exchange RPC Client Access service to free up RPC threads.

Something else is that an increase in the usage of RPC threads can also cause a bottleneck on the server’s resources, (RAM and CPU) thereby slowing down the server itself.

Replication

Data loss incidents, such as file corruption, water damage, human error, and so on can occur in an organization. All organizations should foresee these undesirable incidents and they need a database backup.

Most organizations run Exchange with the replication feature. This feature from Microsoft Exchange Server enables high availability for the Exchange Server's database. But just having this feature in your Exchange Server is not enough, ensuring the proper operation of replication is needed. An improper or fractional database backup is as bad as not having a backup at all. Thus copy status, copy queue, and replay queue for both the active and passive copies of all mailbox databases should be monitored to ensure there's no failure looming.

Further, replication status check is essential for factors like Active Manager, Cluster Service, and Replay Service, etc.

Storage Limits

When storage used to be expensive, Exchange admins used to limit the size of the mailbox storage. But now, because of cheaper storage space many admins decide not to have storage limits. This can cause the database size to grow and further on cause issues, such as a backup failure or increased restore time. Thus it is recommended to limit the mailbox size to minimize the time needed for data restore and reduce the probability of backup failure. Monitoring the mailbox size helps check if the applied rules for maintaining the mailbox size is operational.

Detailed monitoring and proper alerting for the above mentioned counters will help you take action before most undesirable events happen or get out of hand.

Praveen Manohar is a Head Geek at SolarWinds.

Hot Topics

The Latest

Like most digital transformation shifts, organizations often prioritize productivity and leave security and observability to keep pace. This usually translates to both the mass implementation of new technology and fragmented monitoring and observability (M&O) tooling. In the era of AI and varied cloud architecture, a disparate observability function can be dangerous. IT teams will lack a complete picture of their IT environment, making it harder to diagnose issues while slowing down mean time to resolve (MTTR). In fact, according to recent data from the SolarWinds State of Monitoring & Observability Report, 77% of IT personnel said the lack of visibility across their on-prem and cloud architecture was an issue ...

In MEAN TIME TO INSIGHT Episode 23, Shamus McGillicuddy, VP of Research, Network Infrastructure and Operations, at EMA discusses the NetOps labor shortage ... 

Technology management is evolving, and in turn, so is the scope of FinOps. The FinOps Foundation recently updated their mission statement from "advancing the people who manage the value of cloud" to "advancing the people who manage the value of technology." This seemingly small change solidifies a larger evolution: FinOps practitioners have organically expanded to be focused on more than just cloud cost optimization. Today, FinOps teams are largely — and quickly — expanding their job descriptions, evolving into a critical function for managing the full value of technology ...

Enterprises are under pressure to scale AI quickly. Yet despite considerable investment, adoption continues to stall. One of the most overlooked reasons is vendor sprawl ... In reality, no organization deliberately sets out to create sprawling vendor ecosystems. More often, complexity accumulates over time through well-intentioned initiatives, such as enterprise-wide digital transformation efforts, point solutions, or decentralized sourcing strategies ...

Nearly every conversation about AI eventually circles back to compute. GPUs dominate the headlines while cloud platforms compete for workloads and model benchmarks drive investment decisions. But underneath that noise, a quieter infrastructure challenge is taking shape. The real bottleneck in enterprise AI is not processing power, it is the ability to store, manage and retrieve the relentless volumes of data that AI systems generate, consume and multiply ...

The 2026 Observability Survey from Grafana Labs paints a vivid picture of an industry maturing fast, where AI is welcomed with careful conditions, SaaS economics are reshaping spending decisions, complexity remains a defining challenge, and open standards continue to underpin it all ...

The observability industry has an evolving relationship with AI. We're not skeptics, but it's clear that trust in AI must be earned ... In Grafana Labs' annual Observability Survey, 92% said they see real value in AI surfacing anomalies before they cause downtime. Another 91% endorsed AI for forecasting and root cause analysis. So while the demand is there, customers need it to be trustworthy, as the survey also found that the practitioners most enthusiastic about AI are also the most insistent on explainability ...

In the modern enterprise, the conversation around AI has moved past skepticism toward a stage of active adoption. According to our 2026 State of IT Trends Report: The Human Side of Autonomous AI, nearly 90% of IT professionals view AI as a net positive, and this optimism is well-founded. We are seeing agentic AI move beyond simple automation to actively streamlining complex data insights and eliminating the manual toil that has long hindered innovation. However, as we integrate these autonomous agents into our ecosystems, the fundamental DNA of the IT role is evolving ...

AI workloads require an enormous amount of computing power ... What's also becoming abundantly clear is just how quickly AI's computing needs are leading to enterprise systems failure. According to Cockroach Labs' State of AI Infrastructure 2026 report, enterprise systems are much closer to failure than their organizations realize. The report ... suggests AI scale could cause widespread failures in as little as one year — making it a clear risk for business performance and reliability.

The quietest week your engineering team has ever had might also be its best. No alarms going off. No escalations. No frantic Teams or Slack threads at 2 a.m. Everything humming along exactly as it should. And somewhere in a leadership meeting, someone looks at the metrics dashboard, sees a flat line of incidents and says: "Seems like things are pretty calm over there. Do we really need all those people?" ... I've spent many years in engineering, and this pattern keeps repeating ...