That's what I thought. Time to go collect $$ from junior engineer now. :)
-- Durf On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Michael B. Smith < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Option 2. Downtime: zero. Effective: 100% > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP > > My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael > > Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange > > > > *From:* Durf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Saturday, November 08, 2008 8:37 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Move Mailboxes vs. Move Store > > > > Hi all; > > I have a client with a large Exchange 2003 message store, and we want to > both move the location of the store and defragment, as many mailboxes have > already been moved out of it and there's substantial whitespace to be > reclaimed. In terms of time and effectiveness, which strategy is > preferable: > > 1. Move the store via ESM, then defrag. > - or - > 2. Create new store, then Move Mailboxes into the new store, remove old > store. > > The option that minimizes downtime would be preferable. We're migrating > from local SCSI to iSCSI if it matters in the equation. > > Thanks, > Durf > -- > -------------- > Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. > Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks! > > > > > -- -------------- Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Give a fish a man, and he'll eat for weeks! ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
