Still laughing because they were warned ahead of time that this was bad mojo...
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Don Ely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm still laughing... > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Maglinger, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> How did you refrain from hysterics? >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:50 AM >> >> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: Small Fopah >> >> How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file >> size? >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith < >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never >>> backed up. The project was – you guessed – to make it manageable. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM >>> *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues >>> *Subject:* Re: Small Fopah >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 ~
