PF replication will always take a lesser precedent to normal mail traffic, and you can configure it to happen out of hours, if any such things exists in your company.
You might also have the luxury - depending on costs and how much time you have - of setting up an Exchange PF store on a new server locally, replicating your PFs to it, then shipping it off somewhere. Cheers :) ________________________________________ From: bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [bounce-8549838-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff [kurt.b...@gmail.com] Sent: 28 May 2009 19:48 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 ~
