RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency

2003-07-15 Thread Ben Winzenz
Minor change - the setting for "Zero Out Deleted Database Pages" is
found on the properties of the Storage Group, not the server.  Sorry. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:07 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: eseutil defrag inconsistency
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency


This doesn't seem to be right at all.

Event 1221 reported 107 meg but the actual amount recovered was about
2.5 gig.



-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 July 2003 14:34
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency


To get a good estimate, look at your Event logs after Nightly online
maintenance has run.  You should see an event number 1221 for each of
your Stores indicating how much free space is in the database after
online defragmentation has completed.  This figure is your White Space,
and is a general indication of how much space you "might" be able to
regain with an offline defrag (eseutil). 



The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient
or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential
information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the
intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in
reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete from your system. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency

2003-07-15 Thread Ben Winzenz
I believe that the online defrag only reports free space, not partially
used space.  There is a setting on the server to "Zero out Deleted
Database Pages".  This would likely help the Online defrag to report a
better representation of the number.  Be aware though that turning that
on will have a performance hit on your server, as it will be working
harder. 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:07 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: eseutil defrag inconsistency
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency


This doesn't seem to be right at all.

Event 1221 reported 107 meg but the actual amount recovered was about
2.5 gig.



-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 July 2003 14:34
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency


To get a good estimate, look at your Event logs after Nightly online
maintenance has run.  You should see an event number 1221 for each of
your Stores indicating how much free space is in the database after
online defragmentation has completed.  This figure is your White Space,
and is a general indication of how much space you "might" be able to
regain with an offline defrag (eseutil). 



The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient
or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential
information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the
intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in
reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete from your system. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency

2003-07-15 Thread Shotton Jolyon
This doesn't seem to be right at all.

Event 1221 reported 107 meg but the actual amount recovered was about 2.5
gig.



-Original Message-
From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 July 2003 14:34
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency


To get a good estimate, look at your Event logs after Nightly online
maintenance has run.  You should see an event number 1221 for each of
your Stores indicating how much free space is in the database after
online defragmentation has completed.  This figure is your White Space,
and is a general indication of how much space you "might" be able to
regain with an offline defrag (eseutil). 



The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or
entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that
is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient,
you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete from your system. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency

2003-07-10 Thread Ben Winzenz
To get a good estimate, look at your Event logs after Nightly online
maintenance has run.  You should see an event number 1221 for each of
your Stores indicating how much free space is in the database after
online defragmentation has completed.  This figure is your White Space,
and is a general indication of how much space you "might" be able to
regain with an offline defrag (eseutil). 


Ben Winzenz
Network Engineer
Gardner & White
(317) 581-1580 ext 418


-Original Message-
From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:08 AM
Posted To: Exchange (Swynk)
Conversation: eseutil defrag inconsistency
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency


You are, of course, correct that I should not expect identical results
and it's perhaps harsh of me to 'accuse' the tool of inconsistency if
I'm moving the goalposts.

So let me rephrase things.

What I'm trying to achieve is a good estimate of how much use the
procedure would be if I were to run it on Saturday.  Obviously I haven't
got Saturday's database to try it on so I won't be able to run a test
that will show me this precisely.  However running tests on databases a
few days apart would, I thought, give me an idea on whether there would
be a broadly similar reduction in database size or whether there would
be a diminishing return over time.

I was surprised to find that on databases from only a few days apart the
amount of regained space was reduced by 85%.

Can anyone

a) Tell me what sort of returns I might expect given their experiences
with the tool (and bearing in mind a number of accounts have been
removed).

b) Explain how the database organises itself and suggest a reason why
the two figures should be so different.

or

c) Convince me there's no point and a significant danger to the
procedure so I don't have to come in on Saturday and Sunday.

many thanks,
Jolyon

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 July 2003 06:12
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency


It is reasonable to expect an inconsistency when the databases aren't
consistent?  What if you run the defrag twice ON THE SAME DATABASE,
i.e., copies from the same unmodifed database?

Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
"Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century."

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions

We have recently deleted a large (700+) number of accounts and
mailboxes.

It has been decided that defragmenting the store would be useful.

We have tested the procedure on a disaster recovery server.  Twice.

The two restored stores were about a week apart in date and no drastic
changes were made in the meantime.

The first defrag completed in around 6 hours and reduced priv.edb from
60GB to 39GB

The second defrag completed in around 9 hours and reduced priv.edb from
60GB to 57GB

Previous tests of eseutil on other servers have apparently revealed
similarly inconsistent results.

Does anyone have a good idea about what is going on?

If we can recover 21GB it would be well worth the trouble but if it is
nearer 3 then the risk and disruption would make it a pointless task.




The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient
or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential
information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the
intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in
reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete from your system. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&;
lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]



_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency

2003-07-10 Thread Shotton Jolyon
You are, of course, correct that I should not expect identical results and
it's perhaps harsh of me to 'accuse' the tool of inconsistency if I'm moving
the goalposts.

So let me rephrase things.

What I'm trying to achieve is a good estimate of how much use the procedure
would be if I were to run it on Saturday.  Obviously I haven't got
Saturday's database to try it on so I won't be able to run a test that will
show me this precisely.  However running tests on databases a few days apart
would, I thought, give me an idea on whether there would be a broadly
similar reduction in database size or whether there would be a diminishing
return over time.

I was surprised to find that on databases from only a few days apart the
amount of regained space was reduced by 85%.

Can anyone

a) Tell me what sort of returns I might expect given their experiences with
the tool (and bearing in mind a number of accounts have been removed).

b) Explain how the database organises itself and suggest a reason why the
two figures should be so different.

or

c) Convince me there's no point and a significant danger to the procedure so
I don't have to come in on Saturday and Sunday.

many thanks,
Jolyon

-Original Message-
From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 July 2003 06:12
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency


It is reasonable to expect an inconsistency when the databases aren't
consistent?  What if you run the defrag twice ON THE SAME DATABASE, i.e.,
copies from the same unmodifed database?

Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
"Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century."

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions

We have recently deleted a large (700+) number of accounts and mailboxes.

It has been decided that defragmenting the store would be useful.

We have tested the procedure on a disaster recovery server.  Twice.

The two restored stores were about a week apart in date and no drastic
changes were made in the meantime.

The first defrag completed in around 6 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB
to 39GB

The second defrag completed in around 9 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB
to 57GB

Previous tests of eseutil on other servers have apparently revealed
similarly inconsistent results.

Does anyone have a good idea about what is going on?

If we can recover 21GB it would be well worth the trouble but if it is
nearer 3 then the risk and disruption would make it a pointless task.




The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or
entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that
is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient,
you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete from your system. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency

2003-07-09 Thread Ed Crowley
It is reasonable to expect an inconsistency when the databases aren't
consistent?  What if you run the defrag twice ON THE SAME DATABASE, i.e.,
copies from the same unmodifed database?

Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP
"Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century."

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:45 AM
To: Exchange Discussions

We have recently deleted a large (700+) number of accounts and mailboxes.

It has been decided that defragmenting the store would be useful.

We have tested the procedure on a disaster recovery server.  Twice.

The two restored stores were about a week apart in date and no drastic
changes were made in the meantime.

The first defrag completed in around 6 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB
to 39GB

The second defrag completed in around 9 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB
to 57GB

Previous tests of eseutil on other servers have apparently revealed
similarly inconsistent results.

Does anyone have a good idea about what is going on?

If we can recover 21GB it would be well worth the trouble but if it is
nearer 3 then the risk and disruption would make it a pointless task.





The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or
entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that
is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient,
you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have
received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete from your system. 

_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface:
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang
=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]


_
List posting FAQ:   http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Web Interface: 
http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]