I have about ~450 users. We recently switched from commvault to sunbelt archiving. Still in the process of finalizing the move but currently the db's are at 800gb, %50 white space. And the archived email is at 300gb. It would be nice to have strict rules where the db's could be lower but the company does not have such policies.
We archive after 90 days as a default with certain exceptions. The archive server itself is a virtual machine on vmware with 2gb of ram and 2 processors. From: Bob Fronk [mailto:b...@btrfronk.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 9:54 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange archiving I have about 130 users and a 250GB store.... Wow.. you must have some strict limits set. Bob From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:43 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange archiving That's good to hear. I have about 160 users and currently have a 24GB store. What kind of hardware is SEA running on? processor, storage? How long are you archiving for? thx ________________________________ From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 1:20 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange archiving I have recently installed the SEA solution. I'm impressed, everything works, we had a bit of a challenge with RPC / HTTP, we had to get another certificate etc. but it's all good now and I had any help I needed from Sunbelt. The setup was included in the cost and Sunbelt came in remotely and had it all configured in about 1,5 hours. I have about 190 users so far I have archived 138 users, my store has gone from 105 Gb to less than 50Gb (or should have if I defragged). It setup to auto archive automatically after 30 days. My external Archived data is about 40 Gigs. It's very seamless to the users, now I'm just trying to get the users to move all their archives.pst back to the inbox. Very happy SEA user. ___________________________________ Stefan Jafs From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:28 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange archiving Thanks for the reply. We have just started discussing archiving, and while compliancy is a goal, I suppose it would be nice to reduce the size of the store. I would think that once you have enabled any archiving solution, you will be reducing your store? Won't messages that people are keeping now be archived (moved out of the store) thus reducing the size, and allowing for lower mailbox limits? Thx ________________________________ From: Eric Hanna [mailto:eri...@sunbelt-software.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:15 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange archiving In my experience, the load on the Exchange server tends to depend on how many mailboxes are being journaled, the amount of journaling mailboxes, and how much traffic is being ran through the Exchange server. Based on these factors, I would say you will probably see about a 5-15% increase in utilization (rough estimate but is what I generally see). As for how granular journaling is: Exchange 2003 is set on the store level while Exchange 2007 can be set at the mailbox level. Lastly, my 2pennies worth for the archiving: There are lots of solutions out there for archiving from open source to products like Symantec Vault. Enabling journaling for Exchange archiving is a popular way to go as it ensures capture of inbound and outbound traffic instead of interacting with individual mailboxes. While this gets your compliancy side, it doesn't do anything for your store sizes. Products like SEA (yes, a shameless plug) are able to archive your journaling mailbox (and only keep a copy for the archives) and also archive mailboxes individually. This will get your compliancy side as well as getting your information store reduced. While all solutions serve their function, it really depends on what you want to accomplish while archiving. Are you looking for archiving as a compliancy solution and/or do you want to get your information store sizes down? Is it more beneficial for you and your company to use a hosting company or would you like to keep it in-house? Sincerely, Eric Hanna Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist Sunbelt Software ________________________________ From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:43 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange archiving 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 ... This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the Amico Corpoartion company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
