It's only Monday, so I've been biting my tongue over here. My tongue hurts now.
-- ME2 On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, KevinM <kev...@wlkmmas.org> wrote: > And for now that is a good target to shoot at… Where’s Andy Michael David > when you need a good come back = ] > > > > ~Kevinm WLKMMAS > > My life http://www.hedonists.ca > > > > *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 8:16 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > I shoot for under 5K. > > > > *From:* Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > You made me go and look, didn’t you? J I remember Ross Smith talking > about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. > > > > I wasn’t 100% correct. Turns out that it’s the Inbox and Sent Items at > 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, > keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. > > > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx > > > > *From:* KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] > *Sent:* 23 March 2009 14:51 > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get > a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I > think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since > then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole > posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? > > > > ~Kevinm WLKMMAS > > My life http://www.hedonists.ca > > > > *From:* Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > It’s all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent > Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the > recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders < 5,000. In > Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as > you’ve designed your infrastructure correctly) > > > > *From:* Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] > *Sent:* 23 March 2009 13:58 > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you > elaborate on “Control the items in their folders”? > > Thanks > Shay > > > > *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > I don’t think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a > performance issue. > > The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow > learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. > > > > *From:* Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > Hey, > > > > Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes > on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that > purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have > special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We > implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which > turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. > > > > We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of > not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes > (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of > performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit > from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot > of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly > worried about performance from large OSTs…. > > > > Thanks > > > > Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator > > AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group > > Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain > privileged and/or confidential > > information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is > addressed. If you have > > received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the > sender, delete it and destroy > > it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the > waiver of the attorney-client > > or any other privilege. > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain > privileged and/or confidential > > information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is > addressed. If you have > > received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the > sender, delete it and destroy > > it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the > waiver of the attorney-client > > or any other privilege. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
