Every article I've seen that describes horrible performance seems to be talking about having the journal mailbox on the same Exchange server as the mailboxes being journaled.
In my experience, journaling should only be turned on if you have a compliance reason to do so. If that's the case, let your archive product use the journaling as described. If you DO have a compliance requirement, then adding a small server to host journal mailbox(es) shouldn't be too much to ask. If you DON'T have a compliance issue driving this and just want to archive and stub, then I would recommend against journaling. There are vendors that don't require it. Try Mimosa instead of the usual suspects - they don't even require MAPI... --James On 5/5/09, David Mazzaccaro <david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com> wrote: > I am beginning to look into our options for archiving Exchange 2003. > It seems like most solutions involve enabling journaling on the exchange > server and having the server grab a copy of every email that is sent and > received. > Then (with a hosted solution for example), the copies of emails get > securely sent over the internet to the hosting company's servers where > we can log in and view/retrieve them for an archive period. Depending > on the length of archiving and the amount of data, cost seems to be > around $300 - $600 month. > > I assume in-house solutions (where you have the journaling service send > copies of everything to your own in-house server) is also an option? > > In either case, how do I know my server can handle enabling journaling? > There has to be some major performance impact? Also I assume you can > enable journaling on a single (or couple) of test mailboxes? > > Is this what others are doing? > > Thanks > > > > ~ 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 ~
