Anyone ever seen a 600GB database? How about 2 of them? On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should > target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB. > > If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB. > > If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the > passive copy), never exceed 200 GB. > > These are recommendations, not "we won't support you if you exceed these > values". The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a > store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA. > > MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your > mailbox stores. > > Regards, > > Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP > My blog: > http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael<http://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael> > Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Small Fopah > > One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange > 2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a > gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never > could > have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup > wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we > tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged, > hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around. > > We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in > each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't > remember where I found that "magic number", very well could have been some > random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going > offline after that. > > We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly > way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for > the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I > spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran > an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month > I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB). > The subject line read "Piggy mailboxes", and I included instructions for > cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them > into cleaning out the garbage. > > Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort > and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains > 100 > GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than > the > 100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the > empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data > grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a > placeholder, waiting to be filled. > > Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with > the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one > large store. > > > > Michelle Weaver > Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute > Penn State University > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Small Fopah > > Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously) > > > > Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores. > Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise > > > > The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and > the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12 > to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the > line..yadda yadda.. > > > > Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending > money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups.. Admin Staff, Finance, > Sales, etc.. > > The desire was to be able to recover someone's folder or data more > quickly than having to do an entire IS recovery of all mailboxes and > just recover the depts. Store data.. > > > > So I broke it up knowing that SIS would be lost if Email went across > stores.. It was brought up to mgmt but they said the majority of email > was dept localized. I didn't think so and did not fight hard enough, > but.. Now fast forward a year and we are sitting with 5 stores but oh > look they all have grown at about the same rate because they send email > to everyone regardless so I now make a copy 5 times for every email and > attachment.. > > Did I mention that they refused to set store limits and mandated 20gig > file transfers allowed via SMTP..Oh I lost that one hard... CEO had to > be able to send videos to his other buddies and the dept heads as well.. > > > > So now the question...I am 99.9999% sure that moving all of the > mailboxes back into the same store will result in one store being the > size of the sum of all 5 stores combined... Am I right there?? > > > > Any suggestions now that they are separated and essentially is just > taking up more space... > > > > Thanks > > > Greg > > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ > ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
