Hit send too soon... Also, we've been manually archiving the message journaling mailbox for years, and saving the daily PST files to disk and tape.
Kurt On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 12:17, Eric Hanna <eri...@sunbelt-software.com> wrote: > Kurt, > > Speaking on the SEA side of things, it sounds like Exchange is housed at each > respective location? > > If so, it might be best to have a SEA server at each location so that you > don't have to archive and retrieve over your WAN (which could cause some > bandwidth issues once everything is set up). If you did set up SEA in this > manner, you would likely use separate location IDs for each server, i.e. US > would be Location ID 1, UK would be Location ID 2, and AU would be Location > ID 3. As SEA uses Outlook Forms for retrieving purposes, no matter where they > are (depending on network and SEA set up) an employee would be able to > retrieve messages from the respective SEA server on or off the WAN. > > Hopefully, this helps somewhat... > > Sincerely, > > Eric Hanna > Lead Enterprise Technical Services Specialist > Sunbelt Software > > email: supp...@sunbeltsoftware.com > Voice: 1-877-673-1153 x 500 > Web: <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com> > Physical Address: > 33 N Garden Ave > Suite 120 > Clearwater, FL 33755 > United States > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:kurt.b...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 2:49 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: PF replication, latency and archiving > > All, > > We're implementing SEA here, and have three offices - one here in the > US, one in the UK and one in AU. The latency between offices for data > transfer is pretty huge, as you might expect, with the further > handicap that the UK office has a consumer grade DSL connection of > 768/128. > > To illustrate the problem, a robocopy of about 35gb from the US office > to the AU office took nearly two weeks - and they have a 2mb SDSL > connection. > > The AU office has about 30gb in mailboxes and 3gb in PFs, the UK > office has about 42gb in mailboxes and 21gb in PFs. > > Only some of the PFs are replicated to the US office - I don't know > how exactly many at the moment, but it's probably fewer than half. > > Questions: > 1) Do any of you have a similar situation with latency? If so, how > does SEA perform for you? > > 2) I think it makes sense to replicate all foreign office PFs to the > US office, on the theory that SEA will pull replicas locally, and that > native Exchange replication will be gentler on bandwidth consumption > than SEA. Can anyone confirm or disconfirm this theory? > > > Any thoughts on this welcome... > > Kurt > > ~ 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 ~
