I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases.
Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. ------------------------------------------------------ Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery > > > Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something > that helps make > for more efficient delivery rather than something to save > space since over > time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. > > See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. > > Mark > > -----Original Message----- > From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery > > > No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, > but he is out > sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. > > I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an > independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated > jiggery pokery. > > At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >Doesn't play hell with your SIS? > > > >On 1/8/03 13:20, "John W. Luther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >Hey. > > > >We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to > >recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single > >production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. > >With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every > >three mail servers. In addition we have at least one "hot > spare" mail > >server. > > > >When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then > >recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server > to get them > >back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of > the backups > >into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done > in order to > >recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. > > > >Each of our servers costs ~6K using "off the shelf" components. We > >learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge > >equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. > > > >You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for > >production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your > >limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your > shopping ability > >and the components you choose. > > > >John > > > >John W. Luther > >Systems Administrator > >Computing and Information Services > >University of Missouri - Rolla > > > >At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: > >>I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from > >>"Marathon Technologies" they almost fell off their chairs. > I think they > >>want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they > have not told > >>me anything). I told them that for that price the best > thing they could > >>do is have another server and do a daily restore of the > database on that > >>box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. > What do you > >>think? Any other ideas? > >> > >>Thanks > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >>Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM > >>Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups > >>Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery > >>Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery > >> > >>Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe > such a high > >>availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single > box to ensure > >>it's > >>fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis > for only 180 > >>users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the > solution and > >>what > >>budget has been proposed to implement it? > >> > >>On 1/8/03 12:27, "Newsgroups" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>We are looking into different methods of recovery from > Exchange 2000. > >>I > >> > >>know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to > >>recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be > >>transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to > 6 hours). > >>We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but > they don't want > >> > >>to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware > >>replication work and be transparent or are there any other > technologies > >>that you may be aware of? > >> > >> > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________ > >>List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > >>Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > >>To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >>_________________________________________________________________ > >>List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > >>Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > >>To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > >Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > >To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ > >List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > >Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > >To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain > personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically > stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your > system, do > not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in > reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note > that the > BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will > signify your consent to this. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
