I would not do stubs.. If I was going to archive the archive would only be accessible via some other tool. Otherwise I still have Item count and with the current DB design that is not the best idea Performance wise.
Then, I tend to do things differently than most people, I like the simplest approach possible. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -----Original Message----- From: Jason Benway [mailto:benw...@jsjcorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Kevin, could you please explain why you don't care for stubs? How would you recommend archiving for Exchange if you want to reduce the size of the store and keep the method of accessing the archived emails through outlook,OWA,smartphones? Thanks,jb -----Original Message----- From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -----Original Message----- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics <will...@lefkovics.net> wrote: > I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the > performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from > February 2009. > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 > SP2 > also) > > > > > > > > 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 ~ ~ 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 ~
