Thanks Steve. We are building the new servers tomorrow and applying the Sp's + rollups. I'll make sure that hotfix is in there.
G. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:35 AM Subject: Re: Strange behaviour after running ISINTEG > Glenn, > > I have seen this exact issue as well and the SIS hotfix does resolve it > (after applying it and then running ISINTEG on each DB). When you run > ISINTEG without the fix it will temporarily resolve the discrepancy > between the "real" mailbox size and what is reported (thus the sudden > mailbox size increases), but it will come back until the SIS hf is > applied. > > > > 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] _________________________________________________________________ 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]
