Ya, my @edu account is that size and definitely on 2010, but not yet dogfooding SP1 (set readingPane = 'off').
~JasonG > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 16:24 > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Guidance on disks for Exchange 2010 > > 25GB was available ages ago within Exchange Online: > > > > http://blogs.technet.com/b/cloudservicesexperts/archive/2010/03/17/exchan > ge-online-updated-to-provide-25gb-mailbox-by-default.aspx > > > > A few considerations are things like the OST size and performance on some > older hardware, and also the consideration if, say, a laptop is lost or > stolen and a full resync must be performed. > > > > From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] > Sent: 22 July 2010 17:12 > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Guidance on disks for Exchange 2010 > > > > MSFT Online will have 25 GB mailboxes this fall, when they upgrade the > infrastructure to Exchange 2010. > > > > I have historical reservations about it, and backups are a concern; but > disk is cheap. Much cheaper than the loss of productivity that can ensue > because a user has to delete everything to stay under an artificial > limit. > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael B. Smith > > Consultant and Exchange MVP > > http://TheEssentialExchange.com > > > > From: sms adm [mailto:sms...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 12:08 PM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Guidance on disks for Exchange 2010 > > > > I would be interested in anyone doing this or thinking about doing this > in an EMC storage environment. > Just attended a 1/2 seminar by EMC where they espoused virtual disks that > could/would expand when needed. > > One thing shown was disturbing (to me at least). > They said MS was targeting 25GB mailboxes in 3 years (effort to keep up > with Google). > Comments? > > Thx in advance > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Michael B. Smith > <mich...@smithcons.com> wrote: > > Note: I am not recommending you go against published guidance from MSFT. > > > > That being said - that recommendation is primarily against the original > Hyper-V. VHDs created by the original version of Hyper-V, or disks that > have been upgraded from Virtual Server or Virtual PC, expand quite > slowly. > > > > Disks that are created by Hyper-V R2 are only a couple of percentage > points slower than fixed size VHDs. Negligible. > > > > I know a number of companies that are running Hyper-V R2 installations > with variable disks. So far, at least, it hasn't been an issue. > > > > I don't know how (or even if) this impacts VMware or XenServer. > > > > So....to tie this back to your question, if the storage virtualization > causes Exchange to notice whenever the disk expands, it's not a good fit. > > > > Regards, > > > > Michael B. Smith > > Consultant and Exchange MVP > > http://TheEssentialExchange.com > > > > From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 6:35 AM > > > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > > Subject: Guidance on disks for Exchange 2010 > > > > In the virtualisation guide for Exchange 2010, in the section on storage > this is written: > > > > Virtual disks that dynamically expand aren't supported by Exchange. > > > > Does anyone know if this also applies to a disk presented to a physical > server via some form of storage virtualisation appliance? Said disk would > be presented as 100GB, for example, and the OS would see 100GB, but would > grow to reach this size at the storage level. > > > > Thanks > > > > Richard > > > > > > > -- > smsadm
