Agreed, if my current IS is 30GB in size the size of my IS after an exmerge import/export could be as small as something just over 32K or as large as 100GB (or more). It's kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the SIS ratio alone.
Kind of like the mailbox I exported to PST which was 60x larger in PST format than it was in the exchange DB. On 1/10/03 10:56, "Mark Harford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -----Original Message----- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery 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] 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]
