RE: ESEUTIL /R WON'T RUN!! HELP!!
Your checkpoint file is way behind in marking the logs that have been played into the store. This typically happens when a backup doesn't let go of the .chk file. Best option is to delete the .chk file and fix the backup issue. If you run an eseutil /mk exx.chk, you will see the logfile that it thinks was the last one to be played in vs the current logfile generation. They are probably at least 1000 behind (that's when this error occurs). The only issue with deleting the .chk file is that it will force your system to replay through all logs since it doesn't know where to start since the .chk is gone. Jeff -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Timothy J. Trace Posted At: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 2:20 AM Posted To: Exchange Discussion List Conversation: ESEUTIL /R WON'T RUN!! HELP!! Subject: ESEUTIL /R WON'T RUN!! HELP!! My Exchange 2k post-SP3 server seems to run OK, but the information store cannot be backed up. It fails, repeatedly, with "corrupt file" errors. Multiple reboots, including chkdsk /f, don't help. A mailbox-level backup (courtesy of BackupExec v9) seems to work fine. I'm fairly confident that all of the user's items are protected by the mailbox-level backup. HOWEVER - as you probably guessed, the inability to complete a store backup means that the .LOG files are piling up. In fact, there are something on the order of 3900+ .LOG files, each exactly 5.12MB, in the MDBDATA folder!! So, I ran ESEUTIL /R as part of the trouble-shooting process. After 160-odd minutes, ESEUTIL exited with the following message: "Operation terminated with error -614 (JET_errCheckpointDepthTooDeep, too many outstanding generations between checkpoint and current generation) after 9678.31 seconds." Searching Google Web and Google Groups for the phrase "too many outstanding generations" gets no results. Since a Google Web search includes the Microsoft KnowledgeBase, I think I've got a very rare problem on my hands. What do I do now? There are only 50-odd users on this server. Do I have the option of backing up to .PST, then creating a new information store? What do I do to delete the old store, so that it doesn't interfere with the new store? TIA - Tim == _ 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
If it is a database that has been in operation since before Exchange 55 SP3, then in some cases it will help "fix" slow performance due to space tree fragmentation. This is one case where PSS will advocate an offline defragmentation for maintenance as opposed to clawing back disk space in emergencies. -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 December 2002 22:41 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: eseutil True, never said it did. I was addressing your statement that "eseutil does not fix repair anything." - Original Message - From: "Tony Hlabse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:06 AM Subject: Re: eseutil > But is that really repairing? You can argue that but those > inconsistencies do not generate 1018, or 1019 errors. > > - Original Message - > From: "Daniel Chenault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:01 AM > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > On the contrary it can correct some minor inconsistencies as it > > shuffles through every page in the database. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > > > > eseutil /d does not repair anything. > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:25 AM > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > > Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same > > > error > > as > > > the production server. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > > > > And? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > > > > I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on > > > tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me > > > to build a > > recovery > > > server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > > > > Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and > > > replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the > > > information store from this one and then move the users back? > > > > > > Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still > > > > get the same error. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > > > > > > > > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > > > > Subject: eseutil > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > > > > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this > > > > > error. > > > > > > > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > > > > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > > >
Re: eseutil
True, never said it did. I was addressing your statement that "eseutil does not fix repair anything." - Original Message - From: "Tony Hlabse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:06 AM Subject: Re: eseutil > But is that really repairing? You can argue that but those inconsistencies > do not generate 1018, or 1019 errors. > > - Original Message - > From: "Daniel Chenault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:01 AM > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > On the contrary it can correct some minor inconsistencies as it shuffles > > through every page in the database. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:36 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > > > > eseutil /d does not repair anything. > > > > ----- Original Message - > > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:25 AM > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > > Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same > > > error > > as > > > the production server. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > > > > And? > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > > > > I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. > > > Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build > > > a > > recovery > > > server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > > > > Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay > > > the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information > > > store from this one and then move the users back? > > > > > > Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get > > > > the same error. > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > > > > > > > > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > > > > Subject: eseutil > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > > > > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this > > > > > error. > > > > > > > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > > > > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > > > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > > > > Thank > > > > > Tony N. > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.
RE: eseutil
I think the important thing to note here is that you really not do this sort of action unless you are talking with MS PSS and are doing so at the Techs instructions with an open incident. This is something you should not be doing out on your own. And if you are, you better make sure your backups are in good order before proceeding with any of this. A closer look at the Disaster Recovery document could be a good idea while you're at it. My nickels worth Scott -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Thank everyone for the help. PSS has given instructions to run eseutil /p and it working. Here is the step from PSS for anyone who need it. It looks like your database has gotten corrupt. You will need to do a hard repair of the databases. I have listed the steps to follow below: 2) Stop all services 3) go to a command prompt and switch to the exchsrvr\bin directory 4) Run the eseutil /p against the Priv.edb (eseutil /p c:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv.edb) 5) Run the eseutil /p against the Pub.edb (eseutil /p c:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub.edb) 6) Check the consistency state of both databases (eseutil /mh) 7) Start the IS. If it errors out with a -1011error. 8) Run ISINTEG -patch only if you get a 1087 or 1011 error. 9) Start IS 10) If IS starts, then stop the service again, leave the System Attendant and Directory running. 11) Run ISINTEG -pri -fix -test alltests. Run this command until it reports 0 errors 0 fixes or the same number of fixes and error twice. 12) Run ISINTEG -pub -fix -test alltests. Run this command until it reports 0 errors 0 fixes or the same number of fixes and error twice. 13) Start IS 14) At this point, we will need to defrag the databases before putting it back into a production environment. (eseutil /d /ispriv then esetuil /d /ispub from the exchsrvr/bin directory) This utility takes 3- 6 GB per hour -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Well, that would figure when you copy a corrupted database to another machine. Bring up another new machine in the same site, and move all the mailboxes you can to it. After you have all the data out that you can get out of it, decide whether the old machine, especially the disk subsystem, is worthy of Exchange. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same error as the production server. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil And? -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get the > same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > ___
RE: eseutil
I love this line: >14) At this point, we will need to defrag the databases before putting it back into a production environment. (eseutil /d >/ispriv then esetuil /d /ispub from the exchsrvr/bin directory) This utility takes 3- 6 GB per hour So that means it's adding on 3-6GB for every hour it's running :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Nguyen Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Thank everyone for the help. PSS has given instructions to run eseutil /p and it working. Here is the step from PSS for anyone who need it. It looks like your database has gotten corrupt. You will need to do a hard repair of the databases. I have listed the steps to follow below: 2) Stop all services 3) go to a command prompt and switch to the exchsrvr\bin directory 4) Run the eseutil /p against the Priv.edb (eseutil /p c:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv.edb) 5) Run the eseutil /p against the Pub.edb (eseutil /p c:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub.edb) 6) Check the consistency state of both databases (eseutil /mh) 7) Start the IS. If it errors out with a -1011error. 8) Run ISINTEG -patch only if you get a 1087 or 1011 error. 9) Start IS 10) If IS starts, then stop the service again, leave the System Attendant and Directory running. 11) Run ISINTEG -pri -fix -test alltests. Run this command until it reports 0 errors 0 fixes or the same number of fixes and error twice. 12) Run ISINTEG -pub -fix -test alltests. Run this command until it reports 0 errors 0 fixes or the same number of fixes and error twice. 13) Start IS 14) At this point, we will need to defrag the databases before putting it back into a production environment. (eseutil /d /ispriv then esetuil /d /ispub from the exchsrvr/bin directory) This utility takes 3- 6 GB per hour -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Well, that would figure when you copy a corrupted database to another machine. Bring up another new machine in the same site, and move all the mailboxes you can to it. After you have all the data out that you can get out of it, decide whether the old machine, especially the disk subsystem, is worthy of Exchange. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same error as the production server. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil And? -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get the > same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://
RE: eseutil
Thank everyone for the help. PSS has given instructions to run eseutil /p and it working. Here is the step from PSS for anyone who need it. It looks like your database has gotten corrupt. You will need to do a hard repair of the databases. I have listed the steps to follow below: 2) Stop all services 3) go to a command prompt and switch to the exchsrvr\bin directory 4) Run the eseutil /p against the Priv.edb (eseutil /p c:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv.edb) 5) Run the eseutil /p against the Pub.edb (eseutil /p c:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub.edb) 6) Check the consistency state of both databases (eseutil /mh) 7) Start the IS. If it errors out with a -1011error. 8) Run ISINTEG -patch only if you get a 1087 or 1011 error. 9) Start IS 10) If IS starts, then stop the service again, leave the System Attendant and Directory running. 11) Run ISINTEG -pri -fix -test alltests. Run this command until it reports 0 errors 0 fixes or the same number of fixes and error twice. 12) Run ISINTEG -pub -fix -test alltests. Run this command until it reports 0 errors 0 fixes or the same number of fixes and error twice. 13) Start IS 14) At this point, we will need to defrag the databases before putting it back into a production environment. (eseutil /d /ispriv then esetuil /d /ispub from the exchsrvr/bin directory) This utility takes 3- 6 GB per hour -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:07 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Well, that would figure when you copy a corrupted database to another machine. Bring up another new machine in the same site, and move all the mailboxes you can to it. After you have all the data out that you can get out of it, decide whether the old machine, especially the disk subsystem, is worthy of Exchange. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same error as the production server. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil And? -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get the > same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: eseutil
But is that really repairing? You can argue that but those inconsistencies do not generate 1018, or 1019 errors. - Original Message - From: "Daniel Chenault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:01 AM Subject: RE: eseutil > On the contrary it can correct some minor inconsistencies as it shuffles > through every page in the database. > > -Original Message- > From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:36 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > eseutil /d does not repair anything. > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:25 AM > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same > > error > as > > the production server. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > And? > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. > > Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build > > a > recovery > > server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > > > > Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay > > the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information > > store from this one and then move the users back? > > > > Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get > > > the same error. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > > > > > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > > > Subject: eseutil > > > > > > > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this > > > > error. > > > > > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > > > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > > > Thank > > > > Tony N. > > > > > > > > _ > > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
On the contrary it can correct some minor inconsistencies as it shuffles through every page in the database. -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:36 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: eseutil eseutil /d does not repair anything. - Original Message - From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:25 AM Subject: RE: eseutil > Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same > error as > the production server. > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > And? > > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. > Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build > a recovery > server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay > the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information > store from this one and then move the users back? > > Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get > > the same error. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > > Subject: eseutil > > > > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this > > > error. > > > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > > Thank > > > Tony N. > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
Re: eseutil
eseutil /d does not repair anything. - Original Message - From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:25 AM Subject: RE: eseutil > Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same error as > the production server. > > -Original Message- > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > And? > > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just > found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery > server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. > > -Original Message- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the > logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store > from this one and then move the users back? > > Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I > > still get the same error. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > > Subject: eseutil > > > > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > > Thank > > > Tony N. > > > > > > _ > > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
Well, that would figure when you copy a corrupted database to another machine. Bring up another new machine in the same site, and move all the mailboxes you can to it. After you have all the data out that you can get out of it, decide whether the old machine, especially the disk subsystem, is worthy of Exchange. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Nguyen Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same error as the production server. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil And? -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get the > same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _
RE: eseutil
How big is your environment I mean how hard would it be to set up a new server and move the people to it? Its not really that daunting of a task. J -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I > still get the same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
Now I am working off the recovery server and it giving me the same error as the production server. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:19 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil And? -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I > still get the same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
And? -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:16 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I > still get the same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
I usually pay for the full treatment. Wait, wrong list... > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:07 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > You didn't push for escalation? What makes you think that we > can do better > than the people who have the source code? Never, EVER, let a > PSS call die > without a resolution. You paid for it, you deserve the full > treatment PSS > offers up to and including final escalation (if necessary). > > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil > > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I > still get the same > error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 (JET_errPageNotInitialized, > > Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
I have backup but I don't know when was the last good backup on tape. Just found this error a couple of week ago. They have ask me to build a recovery server and run eseutil /d /ispriv. -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 8:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I > still get the same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
You didn't push for escalation? What makes you think that we can do better than the people who have the source code? Never, EVER, let a PSS call die without a resolution. You paid for it, you deserve the full treatment PSS offers up to and including final escalation (if necessary). -Original Message- From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get the same error. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: eseutil How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? - Original Message - From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM Subject: eseutil > Can someone help me with this error. > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > Operation terminated with error -1019 (JET_errPageNotInitialized, > Repair > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > Thank > Tony N. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
Have they asked you to restore from last known good backup and replay the logs or move the users to a new machine and delete the information store from this one and then move the users back? Or, more specifically what have they suggested? > -Original Message- > From: Tony Nguyen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:03 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > > I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I > still get the same error. > > -Original Message- > From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil > > > How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? > > - Original Message - > From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM > Subject: eseutil > > > > Can someone help me with this error. > > > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > > > Operation terminated with error -1019 > (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > > Thank > > Tony N. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil
I did call PSS, I try everything they ask me to do but I still get the same error. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: eseutil How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? - Original Message - From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM Subject: eseutil > Can someone help me with this error. > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > Operation terminated with error -1019 (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > Thank > Tony N. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: eseutil
How many weeks are you going to ask us this before you call PSS? - Original Message - From: "Tony Nguyen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:55 AM Subject: eseutil > Can someone help me with this error. > > When I run eseutil /d /ispriv and after about 10% I get this error. > > Operation terminated with error -1019 (JET_errPageNotInitialized, Repair > Only: Read an unused page) after 384.52 seconds. > Thank > Tony N. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil issues with 195Gb DB?
First prize: Vaguest question of the week award! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Charles Marriott Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 1:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil issues with 195Gb DB? I can't seem to remove about 30Gb of white space. You all know of any issues on this? tia, Charles _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil issues with 195Gb DB?
Then just fill it with more mail :) -Original Message- From: Charles Marriott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 4:28 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil issues with 195Gb DB? I can't seem to remove about 30Gb of white space. You all know of any issues on this? tia, Charles _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5)
Exactly why I left my 90 gig priv alone after cleaning out 70 gig. Who cares It will be used again someday. --Kevinm TSSSBE, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Tony Hlabse Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 7:26 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) Why compress it in the first place. It's just going to grow again. - Original Message - From: "Kevin Miller [Ed]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:21 AM Subject: RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) Hope you have a good backup. How long have you been waiting for the process to run now? --Kevinm TSSSBE, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Olivier de Heer Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) Dear all, Over the weekend we did a compress of a priv.edb (60.5 GB). Yesterday (Sunday) evening around 22:30 the process did reach the 100% mark. From my humble experience I know that Exchange finishes the process with a small report telling us how long the overall process did take. Well, the report isn't here yet and it's 08:30 Monday morning local time. Looking at the priv.edb database in the MDBDATA directory it's 53.1 GB big and got a time stamp (modified/accessed) of Sunday 10:30 PM. So I think the process is finished and I can start the Information Store Service. Am I right on this one or do I have to wait until the report pops up? (We have to be 100% sure on this of course and I don't want to screw up things.) Many thanks in advance, Olivier _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5)
But he got back almost 7 gigs of space that he will use by the end of the week?? --Kevinm TSSSBE, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 7:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) Reason 126 why I never run eseutil... Original message >Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:21:25 -0700 >From: "Kevin Miller [Ed]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) >To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Hope you have a good backup. How long have you been waiting for the >process to run now? > >--Kevinm TSSSBE, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond >http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! > > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Olivier de Heer >Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:40 PM >To: Exchange Discussions >Subject: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) > > >Dear all, > >Over the weekend we did a compress of a priv.edb (60.5 GB). Yesterday >(Sunday) evening around 22:30 the process did reach the 100% mark. From >my humble experience I know that Exchange finishes the process with a >small report telling us how long the overall process did take. Well, the >report isnât here yet and itâs 08:30 Monday morning local time. Looking >at the priv.edb database in the MDBDATA directory itâs 53.1 GB big and >got a time stamp (modified/accessed) of Sunday 10:30 PM. So I think the >process is finished and I can start the Information Store Service. Am I >right on this one or do I have to wait until the report pops up? (We >have to be 100% sure on this of course and I don't want to screw up >things.) > >Many thanks in advance, > >Olivier > > _ >List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm >Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp >To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _ >List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm >Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp >To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Andy David .+x )r뺷 íí¶½ zÇȱr:æ¥Ë±m [y z[)rà vhË+iÙÌG _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5)
Why compress it in the first place. It's just going to grow again. - Original Message - From: "Kevin Miller [Ed]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 10:21 AM Subject: RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) Hope you have a good backup. How long have you been waiting for the process to run now? --Kevinm TSSSBE, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Olivier de Heer Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) Dear all, Over the weekend we did a compress of a priv.edb (60.5 GB). Yesterday (Sunday) evening around 22:30 the process did reach the 100% mark. From my humble experience I know that Exchange finishes the process with a small report telling us how long the overall process did take. Well, the report isn't here yet and it's 08:30 Monday morning local time. Looking at the priv.edb database in the MDBDATA directory it's 53.1 GB big and got a time stamp (modified/accessed) of Sunday 10:30 PM. So I think the process is finished and I can start the Information Store Service. Am I right on this one or do I have to wait until the report pops up? (We have to be 100% sure on this of course and I don't want to screw up things.) Many thanks in advance, Olivier _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5)
Reason 126 why I never run eseutil...
Original message
>Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 07:21:25 -0700
>From: "Kevin Miller [Ed]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5)
>To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Hope you have a good backup. How long have you been waiting
for the
>process to run now?
>
>--Kevinm TSSSBE, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond
>http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here!
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of
Olivier de Heer
>Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:40 PM
>To: Exchange Discussions
>Subject: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5)
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>Over the weekend we did a compress of a priv.edb (60.5 GB).
Yesterday
>(Sunday) evening around 22:30 the process did reach the
100% mark. From
>my humble experience I know that Exchange finishes the
process with a
>small report telling us how long the overall process did
take. Well, the
>report isnât here yet and itâs 08:30 Monday morning local
time. Looking
>at the priv.edb database in the MDBDATA directory itâs 53.1
GB big and
>got a time stamp (modified/accessed) of Sunday 10:30 PM. So
I think the
>process is finished and I can start the Information Store
Service. Am I
>right on this one or do I have to wait until the report
pops up? (We
>have to be 100% sure on this of course and I don't want to
screw up
>things.)
>
>Many thanks in advance,
>
>Olivier
>
>
_
>List posting FAQ:
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
>Archives:
http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
>To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
_
>List posting FAQ:
http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
>Archives:
http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
>To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andy David
Ëi¢Ëb@Bm§ÿðà 0w ¢oëzÊ.Ç¿{!}ª¡¶`+r¯zÈm¶ÿÃ
,Ã)är¿²+^±æ«r ìyªÜ
«)N§²æìr¸zf¢Ú%y«Þ{!jx Ë0Êy ¢a1r§ââ²Ö)åËZvh§³ §Ê&
RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5)
Hope you have a good backup. How long have you been waiting for the process to run now? --Kevinm TSSSBE, M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond http://www.daughtry.ca/ For Graphics and WebDesign, GO here! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Olivier de Heer Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:40 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) Dear all, Over the weekend we did a compress of a priv.edb (60.5 GB). Yesterday (Sunday) evening around 22:30 the process did reach the 100% mark. From my humble experience I know that Exchange finishes the process with a small report telling us how long the overall process did take. Well, the report isnt here yet and its 08:30 Monday morning local time. Looking at the priv.edb database in the MDBDATA directory its 53.1 GB big and got a time stamp (modified/accessed) of Sunday 10:30 PM. So I think the process is finished and I can start the Information Store Service. Am I right on this one or do I have to wait until the report pops up? (We have to be 100% sure on this of course and I don't want to screw up things.) Many thanks in advance, Olivier _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5)
You are soo NOT supported... Without seeing anything, I would say the process hasn't completed yet. Got backups? Don Ely Network Engineer Tripath Imaging, Inc. (336) 290-8293 - Direct (336) 516-4519 - Mobile [EMAIL PROTECTED] - email http://www.tripathimaging.com -Original Message- From: Olivier de Heer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 2:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil (Exchange 5.5) Dear all, Over the weekend we did a compress of a priv.edb (60.5 GB). Yesterday (Sunday) evening around 22:30 the process did reach the 100% mark. From my humble experience I know that Exchange finishes the process with a small report telling us how long the overall process did take. Well, the report isn't here yet and it's 08:30 Monday morning local time. Looking at the priv.edb database in the MDBDATA directory it's 53.1 GB big and got a time stamp (modified/accessed) of Sunday 10:30 PM. So I think the process is finished and I can start the Information Store Service. Am I right on this one or do I have to wait until the report pops up? (We have to be 100% sure on this of course and I don't want to screw up things.) Many thanks in advance, Olivier _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil and isinteg
This was great. I needed the laugh. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:13 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil and isinteg The best I can do is guess. But the process could be going like this: Disk: here's your data. CPU:OKOKIGOTITI'MDONEWRITEITOUTGIMMEMORENOWGIMMEGIMME Disk: Um, hang on a second. Understand that this is not an exact transcription of the process. But I'm sure you get the idea. The system has to write and read in chunks; obviously it won't load all 72GB of your store into your 384 MB of RAM. -- be - MOS Save a little money each month and at the end of the year you'll be surprised at how little you have. -- Ernest Haskins > -Original Message- > From: Poole, Timothy F. - SCO [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:03 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Eseutil and isinteg > > > Bill- > > We're running a test doing an offline recovery. The test box > is a Pentium > IV 1.5 GHZ, 384 MB RAM, with a Maxtor ATA100 120GB hard > drive. OS is Win2K > server w/ Exchange 5.5 SP4. > > Nothing else is running on the system. > > Priv.edb is about 72 GB. I understand this should take a > while, I'm just > curious why the repair apps aren't maxing out the CPU. > > Tim > > And I've fixed the triple e-mail thing > > -Original Message----- > From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 2:55 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Eseutil and isinteg > > > Possibility 1: There are other limiting factors, such as disk > speed, that > are keeping the utilities from using all of your CPU. > Possibility 2: Your CPU is too busy sending triple copies of > all of your > email. > > -- > be - MOS > > > > The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes > disguised as hard work. > -- Herbert V. Prochnow > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:18 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Eseutil and isinteg > > > > > > Why do neither of these utilities use the full processor > > capability of the > > system? I'm only seeing 7 - 10% CPU utilization when repairing the > > information store. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil and isinteg
The best I can do is guess. But the process could be going like this: Disk: here's your data. CPU:OKOKIGOTITI'MDONEWRITEITOUTGIMMEMORENOWGIMMEGIMME Disk: Um, hang on a second. Understand that this is not an exact transcription of the process. But I'm sure you get the idea. The system has to write and read in chunks; obviously it won't load all 72GB of your store into your 384 MB of RAM. -- be - MOS Save a little money each month and at the end of the year you'll be surprised at how little you have. -- Ernest Haskins > -Original Message- > From: Poole, Timothy F. - SCO [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 3:03 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: Eseutil and isinteg > > > Bill- > > We're running a test doing an offline recovery. The test box > is a Pentium > IV 1.5 GHZ, 384 MB RAM, with a Maxtor ATA100 120GB hard > drive. OS is Win2K > server w/ Exchange 5.5 SP4. > > Nothing else is running on the system. > > Priv.edb is about 72 GB. I understand this should take a > while, I'm just > curious why the repair apps aren't maxing out the CPU. > > Tim > > And I've fixed the triple e-mail thing > > -Original Message----- > From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 2:55 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Eseutil and isinteg > > > Possibility 1: There are other limiting factors, such as disk > speed, that > are keeping the utilities from using all of your CPU. > Possibility 2: Your CPU is too busy sending triple copies of > all of your > email. > > -- > be - MOS > > > > The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes > disguised as hard work. > -- Herbert V. Prochnow > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:18 AM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: Eseutil and isinteg > > > > > > Why do neither of these utilities use the full processor > > capability of the > > system? I'm only seeing 7 - 10% CPU utilization when repairing the > > information store. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil and isinteg
Possibility 1: There are other limiting factors, such as disk speed, that are keeping the utilities from using all of your CPU. Possibility 2: Your CPU is too busy sending triple copies of all of your email. -- be - MOS The trouble with opportunity is that it always comes disguised as hard work. -- Herbert V. Prochnow > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 8:18 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Eseutil and isinteg > > > Why do neither of these utilities use the full processor > capability of the > system? I'm only seeing 7 - 10% CPU utilization when repairing the > information store. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: eseutil /d
I think he's busy commuting to his new client. :) - Original Message - From: "Blunt, James H (Jim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:29 PM Subject: RE: eseutil /d Speaking of Ed's, where is Crowley? Haven't seen any posts from him lately. Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Good to have you back Ed. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d That does sound like my argument First in looking at the arguments, it helps to understand what you are arguing. Somewhat as stated, your team is right defragmentation should be done on a regular basis. It reduces the number of extensions on messages, but more importantly makes it faster and easier to find free space to store the messages. Exchange's database is just like any current art database. It's a transaction oriented, journal led write database. Nothing really spectacular about it, regular database maintenance is all that is really needed. So you can easily go to a DBA and get suggestions on how to best care for a database. In most large database products, take SQL for example, as you create a database, you give it an initial size and then specify if the database is extensible or not and if so, how big is an extension. A common default that I use is 50MB for the initial size and 5MB extensions. Then on a regular basis, the database should be defragmented, and then, once in a blue moon you might want to reload the database, although it's not often done anymore. That's the same with Exchange, you want to defragment the database regularly and then reload it on a extremely rare, probably never basis. Sounds good? Install Exchange 5.5 and let it do it's thing and that's what you've got. Nightly, the system makes two runs through each database to defragment it. It also runs through each page of the database to make sure that the checksum is correct as you perform a backup. And I believe that another process goes through and validate the structure periodically. So why run eseutil/d? Well, when I was talking about databases growing, noticed I never said shrinking. SQL doesn't shrink a database, neither does Exchange. Biggest reason is because there really isn't a need for it in most cases. How many people hear of their total storage decreasing? It's usually at least a 5-10% a year increase. But, there are situations where indeed your database could decrease dramatically. That would be if you put a new storage policy into effect, although with the dumpster it could be a few weeks before the messages are actually deleted and SIS can also impact it. Or if you've added a new server and moved users to it. There are a variety of reasons why you would have gained a lot of white space in your database. The question that you need to ask yourself is "are you going to use it again?" If you've deleted some users or objects and you've created 1-% additional white space, just how long do you expect it to be before the space fills back up? If it's a few months, don't worry about it. I tend to make a few GB or 10% of the total store, whichever is higher, the number at which I even start thinking about repacking. I saw last night that I've got 50MB of white space in one of my DBs. It's not even on the radar screen to be compacted. If I had 5GB of white space on a 50GB database, then I might start looking for a window to compact it. But remember that it's going to take a few hours of downtime to do it. Eseutil /d is really a misnomer, a hangover from earlier days. For Exchange 5.5 and later, it really should be eseutil /c or "compact" While it does an applied defragmentation, the database is seldom fragmented, because it is defragmented twice every evening. Oh, and if you do compactions on a regular basis to the same disk, you are probably going to get some ugly NTFS fragmentation. (And yes Daniel, if you compact your database, the system is going to take extra overhead to have to expand the database. And compared to writing a single object, I suspect that it's a rather lengthy process. Okay, it's probably a hundredth of a second, but when you compare it to ill-advised behavior like compacting regularly, at least it make sense) But the real reason why not to do it is like everyone has said, there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost. It is NOT REQUIRED and NOT SUGGESTED to obtain 99.999% uptime. Matter of fact, doing it brings you down to about 99.5% uptime, just taking 4 hours per month. As to making an Exchange Server reach 100% uptime, the
RE: eseutil /d
Ah...so it's the same person, only in reverse? :o) Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d I think they're tag-teaming the list. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Speaking of Ed's, where is Crowley? Haven't seen any posts from him lately. Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Good to have you back Ed. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d That does sound like my argument First in looking at the arguments, it helps to understand what you are arguing. Somewhat as stated, your team is right defragmentation should be done on a regular basis. It reduces the number of extensions on messages, but more importantly makes it faster and easier to find free space to store the messages. Exchange's database is just like any current art database. It's a transaction oriented, journal led write database. Nothing really spectacular about it, regular database maintenance is all that is really needed. So you can easily go to a DBA and get suggestions on how to best care for a database. In most large database products, take SQL for example, as you create a database, you give it an initial size and then specify if the database is extensible or not and if so, how big is an extension. A common default that I use is 50MB for the initial size and 5MB extensions. Then on a regular basis, the database should be defragmented, and then, once in a blue moon you might want to reload the database, although it's not often done anymore. That's the same with Exchange, you want to defragment the database regularly and then reload it on a extremely rare, probably never basis. Sounds good? Install Exchange 5.5 and let it do it's thing and that's what you've got. Nightly, the system makes two runs through each database to defragment it. It also runs through each page of the database to make sure that the checksum is correct as you perform a backup. And I believe that another process goes through and validate the structure periodically. So why run eseutil/d? Well, when I was talking about databases growing, noticed I never said shrinking. SQL doesn't shrink a database, neither does Exchange. Biggest reason is because there really isn't a need for it in most cases. How many people hear of their total storage decreasing? It's usually at least a 5-10% a year increase. But, there are situations where indeed your database could decrease dramatically. That would be if you put a new storage policy into effect, although with the dumpster it could be a few weeks before the messages are actually deleted and SIS can also impact it. Or if you've added a new server and moved users to it. There are a variety of reasons why you would have gained a lot of white space in your database. The question that you need to ask yourself is "are you going to use it again?" If you've deleted some users or objects and you've created 1-% additional white space, just how long do you expect it to be before the space fills back up? If it's a few months, don't worry about it. I tend to make a few GB or 10% of the total store, whichever is higher, the number at which I even start thinking about repacking. I saw last night that I've got 50MB of white space in one of my DBs. It's not even on the radar screen to be compacted. If I had 5GB of white space on a 50GB database, then I might start looking for a window to compact it. But remember that it's going to take a few hours of downtime to do it. Eseutil /d is really a misnomer, a hangover from earlier days. For Exchange 5.5 and later, it really should be eseutil /c or "compact" While it does an applied defragmentation, the database is seldom fragmented, because it is defragmented twice every evening. Oh, and if you do compactions on a regular basis to the same disk, you are probably going to get some ugly NTFS fragmentation. (And yes Daniel, if you compact your database, the system is going to take extra overhead to have to expand the database. And compared to writing a single object, I suspect that it's a rather lengthy process. Okay, it's probably a hundredth of a second, but when you compare it to ill-advised behavior like compacting regularly, at least it make sense) But the real reason why not to do it is like everyone has said, there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost. It is NOT REQUIRED and N
RE: eseutil /d
I think they're tag-teaming the list. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Blunt, James H (Jim) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 4:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Speaking of Ed's, where is Crowley? Haven't seen any posts from him lately. Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Good to have you back Ed. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d That does sound like my argument First in looking at the arguments, it helps to understand what you are arguing. Somewhat as stated, your team is right defragmentation should be done on a regular basis. It reduces the number of extensions on messages, but more importantly makes it faster and easier to find free space to store the messages. Exchange's database is just like any current art database. It's a transaction oriented, journal led write database. Nothing really spectacular about it, regular database maintenance is all that is really needed. So you can easily go to a DBA and get suggestions on how to best care for a database. In most large database products, take SQL for example, as you create a database, you give it an initial size and then specify if the database is extensible or not and if so, how big is an extension. A common default that I use is 50MB for the initial size and 5MB extensions. Then on a regular basis, the database should be defragmented, and then, once in a blue moon you might want to reload the database, although it's not often done anymore. That's the same with Exchange, you want to defragment the database regularly and then reload it on a extremely rare, probably never basis. Sounds good? Install Exchange 5.5 and let it do it's thing and that's what you've got. Nightly, the system makes two runs through each database to defragment it. It also runs through each page of the database to make sure that the checksum is correct as you perform a backup. And I believe that another process goes through and validate the structure periodically. So why run eseutil/d? Well, when I was talking about databases growing, noticed I never said shrinking. SQL doesn't shrink a database, neither does Exchange. Biggest reason is because there really isn't a need for it in most cases. How many people hear of their total storage decreasing? It's usually at least a 5-10% a year increase. But, there are situations where indeed your database could decrease dramatically. That would be if you put a new storage policy into effect, although with the dumpster it could be a few weeks before the messages are actually deleted and SIS can also impact it. Or if you've added a new server and moved users to it. There are a variety of reasons why you would have gained a lot of white space in your database. The question that you need to ask yourself is "are you going to use it again?" If you've deleted some users or objects and you've created 1-% additional white space, just how long do you expect it to be before the space fills back up? If it's a few months, don't worry about it. I tend to make a few GB or 10% of the total store, whichever is higher, the number at which I even start thinking about repacking. I saw last night that I've got 50MB of white space in one of my DBs. It's not even on the radar screen to be compacted. If I had 5GB of white space on a 50GB database, then I might start looking for a window to compact it. But remember that it's going to take a few hours of downtime to do it. Eseutil /d is really a misnomer, a hangover from earlier days. For Exchange 5.5 and later, it really should be eseutil /c or "compact" While it does an applied defragmentation, the database is seldom fragmented, because it is defragmented twice every evening. Oh, and if you do compactions on a regular basis to the same disk, you are probably going to get some ugly NTFS fragmentation. (And yes Daniel, if you compact your database, the system is going to take extra overhead to have to expand the database. And compared to writing a single object, I suspect that it's a rather lengthy process. Okay, it's probably a hundredth of a second, but when you compare it to ill-advised behavior like compacting regularly, at least it make sense) But the real reason why not to do it is like everyone has said, there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost. It is NOT REQUIRED and NOT SUGGESTED to obtain 99.999% uptime. Matter of fact, doing it brings you down to about 99.5% uptime, just taking 4 hours per month. As to making an Exchange Server reach 100% uptime, the equation is pretty simple Keep the Han
RE: eseutil /d
Speaking of Ed's, where is Crowley? Haven't seen any posts from him lately. Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 1:21 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Good to have you back Ed. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d That does sound like my argument First in looking at the arguments, it helps to understand what you are arguing. Somewhat as stated, your team is right defragmentation should be done on a regular basis. It reduces the number of extensions on messages, but more importantly makes it faster and easier to find free space to store the messages. Exchange's database is just like any current art database. It's a transaction oriented, journal led write database. Nothing really spectacular about it, regular database maintenance is all that is really needed. So you can easily go to a DBA and get suggestions on how to best care for a database. In most large database products, take SQL for example, as you create a database, you give it an initial size and then specify if the database is extensible or not and if so, how big is an extension. A common default that I use is 50MB for the initial size and 5MB extensions. Then on a regular basis, the database should be defragmented, and then, once in a blue moon you might want to reload the database, although it's not often done anymore. That's the same with Exchange, you want to defragment the database regularly and then reload it on a extremely rare, probably never basis. Sounds good? Install Exchange 5.5 and let it do it's thing and that's what you've got. Nightly, the system makes two runs through each database to defragment it. It also runs through each page of the database to make sure that the checksum is correct as you perform a backup. And I believe that another process goes through and validate the structure periodically. So why run eseutil/d? Well, when I was talking about databases growing, noticed I never said shrinking. SQL doesn't shrink a database, neither does Exchange. Biggest reason is because there really isn't a need for it in most cases. How many people hear of their total storage decreasing? It's usually at least a 5-10% a year increase. But, there are situations where indeed your database could decrease dramatically. That would be if you put a new storage policy into effect, although with the dumpster it could be a few weeks before the messages are actually deleted and SIS can also impact it. Or if you've added a new server and moved users to it. There are a variety of reasons why you would have gained a lot of white space in your database. The question that you need to ask yourself is "are you going to use it again?" If you've deleted some users or objects and you've created 1-% additional white space, just how long do you expect it to be before the space fills back up? If it's a few months, don't worry about it. I tend to make a few GB or 10% of the total store, whichever is higher, the number at which I even start thinking about repacking. I saw last night that I've got 50MB of white space in one of my DBs. It's not even on the radar screen to be compacted. If I had 5GB of white space on a 50GB database, then I might start looking for a window to compact it. But remember that it's going to take a few hours of downtime to do it. Eseutil /d is really a misnomer, a hangover from earlier days. For Exchange 5.5 and later, it really should be eseutil /c or "compact" While it does an applied defragmentation, the database is seldom fragmented, because it is defragmented twice every evening. Oh, and if you do compactions on a regular basis to the same disk, you are probably going to get some ugly NTFS fragmentation. (And yes Daniel, if you compact your database, the system is going to take extra overhead to have to expand the database. And compared to writing a single object, I suspect that it's a rather lengthy process. Okay, it's probably a hundredth of a second, but when you compare it to ill-advised behavior like compacting regularly, at least it make sense) But the real reason why not to do it is like everyone has said, there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost. It is NOT REQUIRED and NOT SUGGESTED to obtain 99.999% uptime. Matter of fact, doing it brings you down to about 99.5% uptime, just taking 4 hours per month. As to making an Exchange Server reach 100% uptime, the equation is pretty simple Keep the Hands Off! (This assume nightly full backups and verification that the backup ran --VERY important!) Sorry folks, not enough time to give you the long version :-) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailt
RE: eseutil /d
Good to have you back Ed. Serdar Soysal -Original Message- From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 4:27 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d That does sound like my argument First in looking at the arguments, it helps to understand what you are arguing. Somewhat as stated, your team is right defragmentation should be done on a regular basis. It reduces the number of extensions on messages, but more importantly makes it faster and easier to find free space to store the messages. Exchange's database is just like any current art database. It's a transaction oriented, journal led write database. Nothing really spectacular about it, regular database maintenance is all that is really needed. So you can easily go to a DBA and get suggestions on how to best care for a database. In most large database products, take SQL for example, as you create a database, you give it an initial size and then specify if the database is extensible or not and if so, how big is an extension. A common default that I use is 50MB for the initial size and 5MB extensions. Then on a regular basis, the database should be defragmented, and then, once in a blue moon you might want to reload the database, although it's not often done anymore. That's the same with Exchange, you want to defragment the database regularly and then reload it on a extremely rare, probably never basis. Sounds good? Install Exchange 5.5 and let it do it's thing and that's what you've got. Nightly, the system makes two runs through each database to defragment it. It also runs through each page of the database to make sure that the checksum is correct as you perform a backup. And I believe that another process goes through and validate the structure periodically. So why run eseutil/d? Well, when I was talking about databases growing, noticed I never said shrinking. SQL doesn't shrink a database, neither does Exchange. Biggest reason is because there really isn't a need for it in most cases. How many people hear of their total storage decreasing? It's usually at least a 5-10% a year increase. But, there are situations where indeed your database could decrease dramatically. That would be if you put a new storage policy into effect, although with the dumpster it could be a few weeks before the messages are actually deleted and SIS can also impact it. Or if you've added a new server and moved users to it. There are a variety of reasons why you would have gained a lot of white space in your database. The question that you need to ask yourself is "are you going to use it again?" If you've deleted some users or objects and you've created 1-% additional white space, just how long do you expect it to be before the space fills back up? If it's a few months, don't worry about it. I tend to make a few GB or 10% of the total store, whichever is higher, the number at which I even start thinking about repacking. I saw last night that I've got 50MB of white space in one of my DBs. It's not even on the radar screen to be compacted. If I had 5GB of white space on a 50GB database, then I might start looking for a window to compact it. But remember that it's going to take a few hours of downtime to do it. Eseutil /d is really a misnomer, a hangover from earlier days. For Exchange 5.5 and later, it really should be eseutil /c or "compact" While it does an applied defragmentation, the database is seldom fragmented, because it is defragmented twice every evening. Oh, and if you do compactions on a regular basis to the same disk, you are probably going to get some ugly NTFS fragmentation. (And yes Daniel, if you compact your database, the system is going to take extra overhead to have to expand the database. And compared to writing a single object, I suspect that it's a rather lengthy process. Okay, it's probably a hundredth of a second, but when you compare it to ill-advised behavior like compacting regularly, at least it make sense) But the real reason why not to do it is like everyone has said, there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost. It is NOT REQUIRED and NOT SUGGESTED to obtain 99.999% uptime. Matter of fact, doing it brings you down to about 99.5% uptime, just taking 4 hours per month. As to making an Exchange Server reach 100% uptime, the equation is pretty simple Keep the Hands Off! (This assume nightly full backups and verification that the backup ran --VERY important!) Sorry folks, not enough time to give you the long version :-) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, March 15, 2002 3:34 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: eseutil /d Subject: RE: eseutil /d I remember that. Mr Woodrick was pushing the envelope there. With the whitespace taken away, Exchange would have to
RE: eseutil /d
That does sound like my argument First in looking at the arguments, it helps to understand what you are arguing. Somewhat as stated, your team is right defragmentation should be done on a regular basis. It reduces the number of extensions on messages, but more importantly makes it faster and easier to find free space to store the messages. Exchange's database is just like any current art database. It's a transaction oriented, journal led write database. Nothing really spectacular about it, regular database maintenance is all that is really needed. So you can easily go to a DBA and get suggestions on how to best care for a database. In most large database products, take SQL for example, as you create a database, you give it an initial size and then specify if the database is extensible or not and if so, how big is an extension. A common default that I use is 50MB for the initial size and 5MB extensions. Then on a regular basis, the database should be defragmented, and then, once in a blue moon you might want to reload the database, although it's not often done anymore. That's the same with Exchange, you want to defragment the database regularly and then reload it on a extremely rare, probably never basis. Sounds good? Install Exchange 5.5 and let it do it's thing and that's what you've got. Nightly, the system makes two runs through each database to defragment it. It also runs through each page of the database to make sure that the checksum is correct as you perform a backup. And I believe that another process goes through and validate the structure periodically. So why run eseutil/d? Well, when I was talking about databases growing, noticed I never said shrinking. SQL doesn't shrink a database, neither does Exchange. Biggest reason is because there really isn't a need for it in most cases. How many people hear of their total storage decreasing? It's usually at least a 5-10% a year increase. But, there are situations where indeed your database could decrease dramatically. That would be if you put a new storage policy into effect, although with the dumpster it could be a few weeks before the messages are actually deleted and SIS can also impact it. Or if you've added a new server and moved users to it. There are a variety of reasons why you would have gained a lot of white space in your database. The question that you need to ask yourself is "are you going to use it again?" If you've deleted some users or objects and you've created 1-% additional white space, just how long do you expect it to be before the space fills back up? If it's a few months, don't worry about it. I tend to make a few GB or 10% of the total store, whichever is higher, the number at which I even start thinking about repacking. I saw last night that I've got 50MB of white space in one of my DBs. It's not even on the radar screen to be compacted. If I had 5GB of white space on a 50GB database, then I might start looking for a window to compact it. But remember that it's going to take a few hours of downtime to do it. Eseutil /d is really a misnomer, a hangover from earlier days. For Exchange 5.5 and later, it really should be eseutil /c or "compact" While it does an applied defragmentation, the database is seldom fragmented, because it is defragmented twice every evening. Oh, and if you do compactions on a regular basis to the same disk, you are probably going to get some ugly NTFS fragmentation. (And yes Daniel, if you compact your database, the system is going to take extra overhead to have to expand the database. And compared to writing a single object, I suspect that it's a rather lengthy process. Okay, it's probably a hundredth of a second, but when you compare it to ill-advised behavior like compacting regularly, at least it make sense) But the real reason why not to do it is like everyone has said, there is nothing to be gained, and a lot to be lost. It is NOT REQUIRED and NOT SUGGESTED to obtain 99.999% uptime. Matter of fact, doing it brings you down to about 99.5% uptime, just taking 4 hours per month. As to making an Exchange Server reach 100% uptime, the equation is pretty simple Keep the Hands Off! (This assume nightly full backups and verification that the backup ran --VERY important!) Sorry folks, not enough time to give you the long version :-) -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, March 15, 2002 3:34 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: eseutil /d Subject: RE: eseutil /d I remember that. Mr Woodrick was pushing the envelope there. With the whitespace taken away, Exchange would have to take back diskspace as the database began to grow again. The resources required for that would likely not be noticeable. :o) But of course he was correct. William -Original Message----- From: Ray Zo
RE: eseutil /d
True, however I didn't do the service pac's because I thought it would reduce my white space, or even decrease my backup times. I (as most of us?) did/do the upgrades, service pac's, hot fixes, etc. for very specific reasons. I get the "should we be doing (insert your utility here) on a schedule?" every now and then, usually right after someone has read a book, or went to a class. Some we should and do, however some, such as "eseutil /d" have no business being used as a "scheduled maintenance" utility. Just my .02, your mileage may very. Jeff -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 3:31 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d I do not totally agree with that statement though. Granddad or Jim McBee. Otherwise, I would still be on Exchange5.5 sp2 (or WinGate or Postfix on BSD) instead of Exchange2000 sp2. It's like the technical solutions / behavioral problems quote. We use it when it fits. That said, I am too lazy to search the archives for the 300+ times Daniel, Ed, etc discussed how ineffective and unnecessary running this utility beyond the few times it is actually needed. William -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Try reading Jim McBee's book - Exchange 247. It talks about this very issue. Basically, it comes down to the view, from my reading, that "if it ain't broke - leave it alone". If you aren't seeing any errors in the Event logs that clue you into a problem with the databases don't go begging for trouble - you are likely to find it. All the best in your battle with your coworkers. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: paragon400 > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: eseutil /d > > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: eseutil /d
;) I seem to recall having to field this question when I was on the stage at the Boston MEC. My responses now will be the same as they were then. IOW: no real need unless you really WANT to. - Original Message - From: "William Lefkovics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 2:23 PM Subject: RE: eseutil /d > I am SO going to enjoy this thread. :o) > > -Original Message- > From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:33 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: eseutil /d > > > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > ___ > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
I remember that. Mr Woodrick was pushing the envelope there. With the whitespace taken away, Exchange would have to take back diskspace as the database began to grow again. The resources required for that would likely not be noticeable. :o) But of course he was correct. William -Original Message- From: Ray Zorz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:06 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d I remember an excellent explanation of how this will actually hurt Exchange performance by one of the Ed's. I saved it, then lost it somehow. Maybe someone still has it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, Nate Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Try reading Jim McBee's book - Exchange 247. It talks about this very issue. Basically, it comes down to the view, from my reading, that "if it ain't broke - leave it alone". If you aren't seeing any errors in the Event logs that clue you into a problem with the databases don't go begging for trouble - you are likely to find it. All the best in your battle with your coworkers. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: paragon400 > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: eseutil /d > > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 3/14/2002 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
As am I :-)...I really am against doing offline defrags because I really hate to even touch eseutil unless I have to. The people in question are infrastructure guys (jack's of all trades...masters of none). We did a defrag awhile back on a server because it's store had grown to 50 GB when it really had about 20 GB in it. We did recover a lot of space with that which is why I think they think that it would be a good idea (as long as there is a backup) to run it every couple months on all servers. I have only been doing Exchange admin for about 2 years, but in that time I have learned to let Exchange manage itself (unless there is a really important reason to do otherwise). I just want to make sure my gut instinct is correct in that it is not the best idea to run eseutil /d as part of yearly maintenance. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d I am SO going to enjoy this thread. :o) -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and should it be part of regular maintenance? Exchange 5.5 environment. Thanks for any help anyone can provide. ___ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
You are such a sick-o- My friend. --Kevinm M, WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, And Beyond Verio can Burn in hell, While Qwest.net can bite my ARSE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d I am SO going to enjoy this thread. :o) -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and should it be part of regular maintenance? Exchange 5.5 environment. Thanks for any help anyone can provide. ___ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
I do not totally agree with that statement though. Granddad or Jim McBee. Otherwise, I would still be on Exchange5.5 sp2 (or WinGate or Postfix on BSD) instead of Exchange2000 sp2. It's like the technical solutions / behavioral problems quote. We use it when it fits. That said, I am too lazy to search the archives for the 300+ times Daniel, Ed, etc discussed how ineffective and unnecessary running this utility beyond the few times it is actually needed. William -Original Message- From: Couch, Nate [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Try reading Jim McBee's book - Exchange 247. It talks about this very issue. Basically, it comes down to the view, from my reading, that "if it ain't broke - leave it alone". If you aren't seeing any errors in the Event logs that clue you into a problem with the databases don't go begging for trouble - you are likely to find it. All the best in your battle with your coworkers. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: paragon400 > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: eseutil /d > > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
I am SO going to enjoy this thread. :o) -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 9:33 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and should it be part of regular maintenance? Exchange 5.5 environment. Thanks for any help anyone can provide. ___ _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
I have had the good fortune >{ to participate in offline defragmentation
lately.
Remind your colleagues that it is potentially destructive (welll it
could be).
Remind them that in some cases, it takes all night.
Are these colleagues people who know how exchange works??? And who told
them eseutil /d is maintenance that should be done periodically??? Haven't
they ever heard if it ain't broke don't fix it?
If they want to speed up backup, tell them to a) buy something bigger,
better, faster to do backup on; 2) spread out the users on more servers
(heh); III) the store defragments itself all the time. Unless you removed
7GB of user data recently, the only thing you're going to buy is a lot of
downtime.
and phooey to them (I'm tired, the defrag last night took until midnight.)
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:41 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: Re: eseutil /d
It won't hurt Exchange performance but will needlessly break any uptime
metrics.
There is one, count 'em, one difference between an offline and an online
defrag. The former moves the EOF, the latter does not.
- Original Message -
From: "Ray Zorz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: eseutil /d
> I remember an excellent explanation of how this will actually hurt
Exchange
> performance by one of the Ed's. I saved it, then lost it somehow. Maybe
> someone still has it.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, Nate
> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:54 AM
> To: Exchange Discussions
> Subject: RE: eseutil /d
>
>
> Try reading Jim McBee's book - Exchange 247. It talks about this very
> issue. Basically, it comes down to the view, from my reading, that "if it
> ain't broke - leave it alone". If you aren't seeing any errors in the
Event
> logs that clue you into a problem with the databases don't go begging for
> trouble - you are likely to find it.
>
> All the best in your battle with your coworkers.
>
> Nate Couch
> EDS Messaging
>
> > --
> > From: paragon400
> > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: eseutil /d
> >
> > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation
> > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this
> > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my
> > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that
> > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and
> > should it be part of regular maintenance?
> >
> > Exchange 5.5 environment.
> >
> > Thanks for any help anyone can provide.
> >
> > _
> > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
> _
> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 3/14/2002
>
>
> _
> List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: eseutil /d
In that case they need to formulate an SLA on the permissable amount of white space in the databases and use offline defrag to attain that SLA, not just shotgun it. - Original Message - From: "paragon400" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:41 PM Subject: RE: eseutil /d > Their reasoning is to save disk space (there really is not a disk space > issue...9 GB store on a 40 GB drive for example)...and to speed up > backups. > > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:05 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil /d > > > One cannot prove a negative. Have them give their reasoning for this and > then you can address their concerns. > > - Original Message - > From: "paragon400" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 AM > Subject: eseutil /d > > > > I have some team members here that believe that regular > > defragmentation > > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
While their second argument is technically valid (backups treat whitespace and used space the same), I would think that you wouldn't have much whitespace to begin with. Check the even logs to see just how much whitespace exists. On my 20+GB databases, it tends to be less than a few megs. I'd ask them to compare the amount of downtime it would take for a defrag on your store (hours, many hours) vs. the shorter backup window (which doesn't affect anyone). -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA > -Original Message- > From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 1:42 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil /d > > > Their reasoning is to save disk space (there really is not a > disk space issue...9 GB store on a 40 GB drive for > example)...and to speed up backups. > > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:05 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil /d > > > One cannot prove a negative. Have them give their reasoning > for this and then you can address their concerns. > > - Original Message - > From: "paragon400" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 AM > Subject: eseutil /d > > > > I have some team members here that believe that regular > > defragmentation > > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
How much "white space" do you have in the databases (look for the 1221 events in your App log)? > -- > From: paragon400 > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:41 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: eseutil /d > > Their reasoning is to save disk space (there really is not a disk space > issue...9 GB store on a 40 GB drive for example)...and to speed up > backups. > > -Original Message- > From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:05 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Re: eseutil /d > > > One cannot prove a negative. Have them give their reasoning for this and > then you can address their concerns. > > - Original Message - > From: "paragon400" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 AM > Subject: eseutil /d > > > > I have some team members here that believe that regular > > defragmentation > > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
Their reasoning is to save disk space (there really is not a disk space issue...9 GB store on a 40 GB drive for example)...and to speed up backups. -Original Message- From: Daniel Chenault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:05 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: eseutil /d One cannot prove a negative. Have them give their reasoning for this and then you can address their concerns. - Original Message - From: "paragon400" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: eseutil /d > I have some team members here that believe that regular > defragmentation > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: eseutil /d
It won't hurt Exchange performance but will needlessly break any uptime metrics. There is one, count 'em, one difference between an offline and an online defrag. The former moves the EOF, the latter does not. - Original Message - From: "Ray Zorz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:06 PM Subject: RE: eseutil /d > I remember an excellent explanation of how this will actually hurt Exchange > performance by one of the Ed's. I saved it, then lost it somehow. Maybe > someone still has it. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, Nate > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:54 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: eseutil /d > > > Try reading Jim McBee's book - Exchange 247. It talks about this very > issue. Basically, it comes down to the view, from my reading, that "if it > ain't broke - leave it alone". If you aren't seeing any errors in the Event > logs that clue you into a problem with the databases don't go begging for > trouble - you are likely to find it. > > All the best in your battle with your coworkers. > > Nate Couch > EDS Messaging > > > -- > > From: paragon400 > > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: eseutil /d > > > > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation > > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > > > _ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 3/14/2002 > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
I remember an excellent explanation of how this will actually hurt Exchange performance by one of the Ed's. I saved it, then lost it somehow. Maybe someone still has it. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Couch, Nate Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 10:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d Try reading Jim McBee's book - Exchange 247. It talks about this very issue. Basically, it comes down to the view, from my reading, that "if it ain't broke - leave it alone". If you aren't seeing any errors in the Event logs that clue you into a problem with the databases don't go begging for trouble - you are likely to find it. All the best in your battle with your coworkers. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: paragon400 > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: eseutil /d > > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.338 / Virus Database: 189 - Release Date: 3/14/2002 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: eseutil /d
One cannot prove a negative. Have them give their reasoning for this and then you can address their concerns. - Original Message - From: "paragon400" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 AM Subject: eseutil /d > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
Try reading Jim McBee's book - Exchange 247. It talks about this very issue. Basically, it comes down to the view, from my reading, that "if it ain't broke - leave it alone". If you aren't seeing any errors in the Event logs that clue you into a problem with the databases don't go begging for trouble - you are likely to find it. All the best in your battle with your coworkers. Nate Couch EDS Messaging > -- > From: paragon400 > Reply To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 11:32 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: eseutil /d > > I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation > (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this > opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my > belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that > eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and > should it be part of regular maintenance? > > Exchange 5.5 environment. > > Thanks for any help anyone can provide. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d
As granddad once said, if it ain't broke don't fix it! -Original Message- From: paragon400 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, March 15, 2002 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d I have some team members here that believe that regular defragmentation (offline) should be done as routine maintenance. I don't share this opinion, but I am having a hard time finding evidence to support my belief. Does anyone know of any links that support the theory that eseutil should not be used for regular maintenance or am I wrong and should it be part of regular maintenance? Exchange 5.5 environment. Thanks for any help anyone can provide. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ESEUTIL /d does not defrag the PR1V.edb
Only 400KB? That's all? Do a report on usage; someone didn't clear out their mail. 400KB is nothing; a single message with a smallish attachment of an Excel spreadsheet can eat that up. - Original Message - From: "Hong Bui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 10:15 AM Subject: Re: ESEUTIL /d does not defrag the PR1V.edb > The database size reduced less than 400Kb (still about 15.5MB) after the > compact, then immediately came back to 16MB. > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ESEUTIL /d does not defrag the PR1V.edb
The database size reduced less than 400Kb (still about 15.5MB) after the compact, then immediately came back to 16MB. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ESEUTIL /d does not defrag the PR1V.edb
After compaction, did the file show a significant drop in file size? How soon after restarting the store does the size go back up? Does this server host any foreign gateways (such as an IMS)? Perhaps there is a looping message in the IMS (if present); this would certainly cause a ballooning store. Perhaps a particular user or users are trying to sync an offline copy of a large amount of mail, or someone is sending large attachments. - Original Message - From: "Hong Bui" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Exchange Discussions" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 10, 2001 12:48 AM Subject: ESEUTIL /d does not defrag the PR1V.edb > We have a Win2K SP2 member server with E2K standard server SP1. We have > reduce most of our users' email size considerably, still we received the > event error 445 Category: Space Mgmt: "Information Store (2704) the > database d:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.edb has reached a maximum of 16383MB. > If the database cannot be restarted, an offline defrag may be performed to > reduce its size." Then none of our users can not connect to the mail > server. > > We tried to run ESEUTIL from safe mode with command prompt a few times, it > went right back up to 16MB after we rebooted the server. We tried to run > the ESEUTIL in server normal mode, with mail store dismounted and the > Exchange IS service stopped. The command we used is: ESEUTIL /d > d:\exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.edb. > > What can we do to reclaim the free space or compact the size of the > database? Thanks in advance. > > > > _ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil
You might also consider setting up a LoadSim job and let that beat on the box for awhile. I generally set it up for about 2X the load I anticipate my users will put on the box. Make sure you've got a perfmon session running against the box remotely incase the box pukes. Tom. -Original Message- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil Don, It's a Mylex 350 with 64Mb cache (currently all logical drives set for write-thru). It occurs to me now to mention that although eseutil has sometimes ended prematurely with what I would regard as hardware related errors, Exchange itself runs fine, even when I select masses of mailboxes and delete them. Roger -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2001 14:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil Eseutil is well known for beating the hell out of RAID controllers. If you have a poor one, eseutil will be the first to tell you. What kind of RAID card is it? What kind of cache does it have? Does it support a really heavy load of disk I/O's? -Original Message- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil Folks, I'm interested in peoples' experience with eseutil, especially integrity and defrag modes. I'm commissioning new hardware and, because of some Mylex controller trouble at the start, I'm restoring EXS 5.5 SP3 (plus store fix) stores and directory and then running eseutil defrag and integrity checks. Thereafter I'll delete hundreds of mailboxes and then again defrag and run integrity checks. The whole point is to generate a lot of disk activity to stress the disk subsystem. The results are not too satisfactory as I'm getting a (admittedly low) level of read failures and sometimes checksum failures. Because all this takes a great deal of time due to the size of the database and the restore/defrag etc times I'm not yet getting a picture which is sufficiently clear to allow me to be absolutely certain it is hardware alone which is the culprit. Suggestions that eseutil is flawed have been aired as a distraction from the hardware being the culprit. I'm wondering if anyone has any views of this type of thing compared with real life operations. The difficulty I'm in is convincing the supplier I've got a low level hardware problem, not a software problem. Any experiences you can relate would be appreciated. Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil
Hmmm... Never heard of a Mylex. I'm an Adaptec fan myself. As far as Exchange running fine, the Dell Perc2 controllers were known to have problems when running eseutil. Eseutil would always hang the server when running although Exchange itself ran fine. I would imagine if you had some serious disk I/O's in Exchange you would see some lag time. For example, if 1000's of messages came through the queue all at once, you might see some performance degradation. In your instance of deleting multiple mailboxes at a time, you're not impacting the disk I/O's because the space is not removed. The priv.edb still remains the same until eseutil is run to reclaim the whitespace created by the online defrag. Let me ask you this, does your online defrag run without a hitch? Or do you see errors about its ability to run or at least to complete? -Original Message- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 7:51 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil Don, It's a Mylex 350 with 64Mb cache (currently all logical drives set for write-thru). It occurs to me now to mention that although eseutil has sometimes ended prematurely with what I would regard as hardware related errors, Exchange itself runs fine, even when I select masses of mailboxes and delete them. Roger -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2001 14:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil Eseutil is well known for beating the hell out of RAID controllers. If you have a poor one, eseutil will be the first to tell you. What kind of RAID card is it? What kind of cache does it have? Does it support a really heavy load of disk I/O's? -Original Message- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil Folks, I'm interested in peoples' experience with eseutil, especially integrity and defrag modes. I'm commissioning new hardware and, because of some Mylex controller trouble at the start, I'm restoring EXS 5.5 SP3 (plus store fix) stores and directory and then running eseutil defrag and integrity checks. Thereafter I'll delete hundreds of mailboxes and then again defrag and run integrity checks. The whole point is to generate a lot of disk activity to stress the disk subsystem. The results are not too satisfactory as I'm getting a (admittedly low) level of read failures and sometimes checksum failures. Because all this takes a great deal of time due to the size of the database and the restore/defrag etc times I'm not yet getting a picture which is sufficiently clear to allow me to be absolutely certain it is hardware alone which is the culprit. Suggestions that eseutil is flawed have been aired as a distraction from the hardware being the culprit. I'm wondering if anyone has any views of this type of thing compared with real life operations. The difficulty I'm in is convincing the supplier I've got a low level hardware problem, not a software problem. Any experiences you can relate would be appreciated. Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil
Don, It's a Mylex 350 with 64Mb cache (currently all logical drives set for write-thru). It occurs to me now to mention that although eseutil has sometimes ended prematurely with what I would regard as hardware related errors, Exchange itself runs fine, even when I select masses of mailboxes and delete them. Roger -Original Message- From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 November 2001 14:56 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Eseutil Eseutil is well known for beating the hell out of RAID controllers. If you have a poor one, eseutil will be the first to tell you. What kind of RAID card is it? What kind of cache does it have? Does it support a really heavy load of disk I/O's? -Original Message- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil Folks, I'm interested in peoples' experience with eseutil, especially integrity and defrag modes. I'm commissioning new hardware and, because of some Mylex controller trouble at the start, I'm restoring EXS 5.5 SP3 (plus store fix) stores and directory and then running eseutil defrag and integrity checks. Thereafter I'll delete hundreds of mailboxes and then again defrag and run integrity checks. The whole point is to generate a lot of disk activity to stress the disk subsystem. The results are not too satisfactory as I'm getting a (admittedly low) level of read failures and sometimes checksum failures. Because all this takes a great deal of time due to the size of the database and the restore/defrag etc times I'm not yet getting a picture which is sufficiently clear to allow me to be absolutely certain it is hardware alone which is the culprit. Suggestions that eseutil is flawed have been aired as a distraction from the hardware being the culprit. I'm wondering if anyone has any views of this type of thing compared with real life operations. The difficulty I'm in is convincing the supplier I've got a low level hardware problem, not a software problem. Any experiences you can relate would be appreciated. Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Eseutil
Eseutil is well known for beating the hell out of RAID controllers. If you have a poor one, eseutil will be the first to tell you. What kind of RAID card is it? What kind of cache does it have? Does it support a really heavy load of disk I/O's? -Original Message- From: Roger Mackenzie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 6:49 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Eseutil Folks, I'm interested in peoples' experience with eseutil, especially integrity and defrag modes. I'm commissioning new hardware and, because of some Mylex controller trouble at the start, I'm restoring EXS 5.5 SP3 (plus store fix) stores and directory and then running eseutil defrag and integrity checks. Thereafter I'll delete hundreds of mailboxes and then again defrag and run integrity checks. The whole point is to generate a lot of disk activity to stress the disk subsystem. The results are not too satisfactory as I'm getting a (admittedly low) level of read failures and sometimes checksum failures. Because all this takes a great deal of time due to the size of the database and the restore/defrag etc times I'm not yet getting a picture which is sufficiently clear to allow me to be absolutely certain it is hardware alone which is the culprit. Suggestions that eseutil is flawed have been aired as a distraction from the hardware being the culprit. I'm wondering if anyone has any views of this type of thing compared with real life operations. The difficulty I'm in is convincing the supplier I've got a low level hardware problem, not a software problem. Any experiences you can relate would be appreciated. Regards, Roger Mackenzie (Glasgow University) _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5
Doable. . . I did it a few months ago. I think the Q-# that Andy sent you is the one I used. Checking. .. Darcy -Original Message- From: Romero, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 to run eseutil /d /ispriv in a Nt server with plenty of disk space but whitout Echange server..then the resulted priv.edb (after the /d) will be moved to the original server. What do you think? Rgds, -er -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 I think maybe you better explain what you're trying to do, and how you're trying to do it a bit more. -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. - John Tyler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Romero, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 Hi all MSX5.5+SP4 can I ran eseutil /d in a NT system whitout Exchange software? what files do I need to copy to that NON-exchange server other than eseutil.exe and priv.edb ? Rgds, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5
I think Andy's right, and you should look at Q244525. -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand. (Mark Twain, american writer and humorist, 1835-1910) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Romero, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 2:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 to run eseutil /d /ispriv in a Nt server with plenty of disk space but whitout Echange server..then the resulted priv.edb (after the /d) will be moved to the original server. What do you think? Rgds, -er -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 I think maybe you better explain what you're trying to do, and how you're trying to do it a bit more. -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. - John Tyler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Romero, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 Hi all MSX5.5+SP4 can I ran eseutil /d in a NT system whitout Exchange software? what files do I need to copy to that NON-exchange server other than eseutil.exe and priv.edb ? Rgds, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5
Well, you can't use the /ispriv switch if you plan to do that. You will need to specify exactly where the database is. I've never tried to do that though. I believe ESEUTIL actually starts the data engine etc. Why not just slap an Exchange install on your recovery server and just overwrite the 1MB edbs with what you have. You should be fine unless you attempt to start the services. S. -Original Message- From: Romero, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 3:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 to run eseutil /d /ispriv in a Nt server with plenty of disk space but whitout Echange server..then the resulted priv.edb (after the /d) will be moved to the original server. What do you think? Rgds, -er -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 I think maybe you better explain what you're trying to do, and how you're trying to do it a bit more. -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. - John Tyler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Romero, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 Hi all MSX5.5+SP4 can I ran eseutil /d in a NT system whitout Exchange software? what files do I need to copy to that NON-exchange server other than eseutil.exe and priv.edb ? Rgds, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5
But why do you want to run that... That is the issue here.. You new here?? Do you not hear the Daily ratings about how dangerous this can be? Kevinm M WLKMMAS, UCC+WCA, CKWSE -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Romero, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:33 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 to run eseutil /d /ispriv in a Nt server with plenty of disk space but whitout Echange server..then the resulted priv.edb (after the /d) will be moved to the original server. What do you think? Rgds, -er -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 I think maybe you better explain what you're trying to do, and how you're trying to do it a bit more. -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. - John Tyler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Romero, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 Hi all MSX5.5+SP4 can I ran eseutil /d in a NT system whitout Exchange software? what files do I need to copy to that NON-exchange server other than eseutil.exe and priv.edb ? Rgds, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5
to run eseutil /d /ispriv in a Nt server with plenty of disk space but whitout Echange server..then the resulted priv.edb (after the /d) will be moved to the original server. What do you think? Rgds, -er -Original Message- From: Drewski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 12:18 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 I think maybe you better explain what you're trying to do, and how you're trying to do it a bit more. -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. - John Tyler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Romero, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 Hi all MSX5.5+SP4 can I ran eseutil /d in a NT system whitout Exchange software? what files do I need to copy to that NON-exchange server other than eseutil.exe and priv.edb ? Rgds, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5
I think maybe you better explain what you're trying to do, and how you're trying to do it a bit more. -- Drew Visit http://www.drewncapris.net! Go! Go there now! The offices of the Government are open alike to all. No tithes are levied to support an established Hierarchy, nor is the fallible judgement of man set up as the sure and infallible creed of faith. - John Tyler -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Romero, Eric Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 1:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 Hi all MSX5.5+SP4 can I ran eseutil /d in a NT system whitout Exchange software? what files do I need to copy to that NON-exchange server other than eseutil.exe and priv.edb ? Rgds, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil /d question MSX5.5
Q244525 -Original Message- From: Romero, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 2:51 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: eseutil /d question MSX5.5 Hi all MSX5.5+SP4 can I ran eseutil /d in a NT system whitout Exchange software? what files do I need to copy to that NON-exchange server other than eseutil.exe and priv.edb ? Rgds, -er _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
