I'm not Kevin but I'll answer anyway. Microsoft actually said last year in a whitepaper that they don't recommend stubbing, because of what was mentioned here - it saves on size certainly, but if a user never touches their Inbox again, 80000 items will quickly become a performance problem.
--James On 3/23/09, Jason Benway <benw...@jsjcorp.com> wrote: > 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 ~ > > -- Sent from my mobile device ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
