HI Greg, Actually, in some of the reading I've done, the literature for Exchange 2010 claims up to 90% less disk I/O than that experienced with Exchange 2003 (what we're running now).
My whole thinking about the necessity of archiving before moving to 2010 was based on the (quite possibly wrong) assumption that due to our high Single Instance Ratio I'd have a large increase in required storage right from the start. I wasn't even considering 2010's archiving features since I've read multiple times that they're not quite up to snuff (yet). I'll follow MBS's advice and total up mailbox usage as reported in System Manager and let everyone know just how far off target my assumption was. Thanks, RS On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Greg Olson <gol...@markettools.com> wrote: > +1 > > Exchange 2010’s ability to use cheap(er) sata drives (it was re-engineered > to use far less Disk IO than 2007 which was something like 70% less disk IO > than 2003) really make having to have email archiving for a shop your size a > thing of the past. But if you really want it, 2010 has it as a built in > feature, although I’d wait till it gets a little more mature in SP1 or > above. You could easily have a few TB’s of storage for cheap now, as you > don’t have to throw expensive fast drives at it anymore. > > -Greg > > > > > > *From:* Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 01, 2010 11:43 AM > > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: 2003 to 2010 planning > > > > In addition to Neil’s comments, I ask WHY you think that storage is better > served in an archiving system than in an Exchange mailbox? > > > > *From:* Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, February 01, 2010 1:49 PM > *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues > *Subject:* 2003 to 2010 planning > > > > Good afternoon one and all, and please forgive the long post. > > > > I’m thinking about proposing the upgrade from Exchange 2003 to Exchange > 2010 this year. We're currently running a single monolithic server that has > (knock on wood) been extremely reliable for going on 5 years. We’ve got > ~100 mailboxes now, and I don’t see us ever growing past 200. The > information store is currently 110GB, and the perfmon-reported Single > Instance Ratio is pretty large at 22. We have ~10 remote users who use > Outlook Anywhere, ~10 PDA users, ~10 Mac (Entourage) users, and OWA is > available to most everyone. AD is a single domain forest, is at 2003 Domain > and Forest Functional Levels, and all DCs are 2003 SP2. We have a single > physical site, and only one site in AD. > > > > Before rolling out 2010, I intend to deploy an e-mail archiving solution of > some sort. My hope is that, in addition to the obvious retention and search > benefits this will provide, it will also take some of the pressure off of > Exchange 2010's storage requirements by allowing me to finally enforce > mailbox size restrictions without reducing the availability of older > messages. > > > > I've been poking around the interweb, looking for information that will > help me determine how to design and deploy Exchange 2010 in a manner > appropriate for our environment. The most promising thing I've come up with > is a simple statement on the Microsoft page that describes Exchange 2010 > Mailbox Resiliency ( > http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/2010/en/us/Mailbox-Resiliency.aspx). It > says, " For smaller sites, you can deploy a simple two-server configuration > that provides full redundancy of mailbox data along with Client Access and > Hub Transport roles. These changes put high availability within the reach of > organizations that once considered it impractical." That sounds like > exactly like what I'm after - a simple-to-maintain, two server solution > where all the inside roles are redundant. > > > > Does this configuration sound appropriate for an organization of the size > and characteristics described above? Does anyone have any pointers to more > in-depth discussion of this two server configuration? (Is there a > particular name for this configuration?) > > > > Lastly, from what I can gather, this can be accomplished with Exchange > Server 2010 Standard and Standard CALs. For an organization the size of > ours, I don't think I need the added benefits of the Enterprise CAL at this > point. Message hygiene is handled by the Barracuda and Sunbelt's VPE > product, and I believe mailbox resiliency is available in the standard > server regardless of CAL type. > > > > Any thoughts or comments are most welcome. > > > > Thanks, > RS >
