Jason, I did find the article in the end, IIRC you transposed some of the numbers in the article ID.
IIRC the article is more in reference to a bug in the SIS component, where a message received by multiple users on the same store is modified by one or more users and the size / references are not updated correctly (or something like that). It certainly could be one of the problems we are having, however the level of corruption (in the order of several hundred thousand messages in one store alone) points to something more fundamental. Glenn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 5:06 AM Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG It wasn't a premier article. I had pulled up the article when I sent the e-mail but now I can't find it either. It's not even on the list of bugs that the rollup hotfix addresses. Basically the mailbox size in ESM is different than what outlook tells the user and when you run an isinteg the mailbox size in ESM is larger, more accurate to what outlook says it is. Sorry I didn't send the full link initially Jason -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG Is that a premier only article ? cant seem to find it on technet. G. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kelley, Jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2003 6:34 PM Subject: RE: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG Check out Q article Q818830 We applied the single instance store hotfix before it was part of the Sept hotfix rollup. When we ran isinteg we had many mailboxes jump in size. Jason -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glenn Corbett Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 9:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG All, Recently we have been having some strange behaviours with user mailboxes, such as users being denied access to folders in their mailboxes, rules disappearing etc. After running ISINTEG on all stores (approx 20), a number of errors were found and fixed...all good so far. After remounting the stores everything looked fine....until the next morning when people came back to work. A number of mailboxes had suddenly a LOT more mail in their inboxes and deleted items folders, some users over 200mb worth, which threw a lot of the organisation over the store limits and stopped them sending and receiving mail. We temporarily increased the store limits to cope with the problem, however we are still at a loss to explain what happened. After speaking with PSS, they are also at a bit of a loss as well. I've also checked Technet and other online resources, but no mention is made of this sort of problem. - Some users had no effect on their mailboxes - Some users had lots of mail return to either their deleted items or inbox (we are surmising that the way the message was originally deleted has determined where it came back to - shift-delete - back to inbox, deleted via deleted items - back to delete items). - The restored messages don't seem to be from the previous days. In all of the cases we have confirmed, messages deleted the couple of days previous didn't come back, but messages deleted prior to that did come back. Has anyone seen this behaviour before and could possibly explain what happened ? As with all of these things, the people most affected were senior management, and they are screaming for a satisfactory response. Config: Windows 2000 SP2 with hotfixes Exchange 2000 SP2 - 6 Servers, 2 badly affected, 1 with minor effects, 3 not affected at all Trend Scanmail installed on all servers 1 Storage group on each server, between 2 and 4 databases per storage group On the servers that were affected, only one or two of the 4 stores was affected. As far as we can determine, either Exchange wasn't properly cleaning out deleted items from mailboxes (but was reducing the size of mailboxes as users were under the mailbox limit cap until the messages were restored), OR something happened and exchange replayed some of the transaction logs restoring old messages (but in that case all of the stores in the storage group should have been affected, but weren't) Thoughts ? TIA Glenn Corbett _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
