date:20081009

You didn't answer our questions for additional information. So, we are flying 
blind.

What you suggest below will create what is called a dial-tone database. That 
is - it'll be empty.

I don't know how you think you'll be able to extract the mailboxes in order to 
use exmerge to upload them. Seems to be a gaping hole in your plan.

So...like Mr. Schwartz suggested - your best bet is to call Microsoft.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Nirav Doshi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:08 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: re: databse currpted

just want to confirm that to overcome this issue i have one idea i.e
i dismount the store  i will copy priv1.edb file  priv1.stm file. Now i 
rename the both file with priv1_old.edb  priv1_old.stm file now i mount the 
database it will ask that you want to mount blank database say yes. now 
throught exmerge i can upload the mail box. 
just i want to know that weather this idea will work or not? 
i done in my test enviroment but i am not sure
~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Small Fopah

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
offline after that.  

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains 100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled. 

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
large store.



Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah
 
Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)

 

Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise

 

The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12
to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the
line..yadda yadda..

 

Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending
money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups..  Admin Staff, Finance,
Sales, etc..

The desire was to be able to recover someone's folder or data more
quickly than having to do an entire IS recovery of all mailboxes and
just recover the depts. Store data..

 

So I broke it up knowing that SIS would be lost if Email went across
stores.. It was brought up to mgmt but they said the majority of email
was dept localized.  I didn't think so and did not fight hard enough,
but.. Now fast forward a year and we are sitting with 5 stores but oh
look they all have grown at about the same rate because they send email
to everyone regardless so I now make a copy 5 times for every email and
attachment..

Did I mention that they refused to set store limits and mandated 20gig
file transfers allowed via SMTP..Oh I lost that one hard... CEO had to
be able to send videos to his other buddies and the dept heads as well..

 

So now the question...I am 99.% sure that moving all of the
mailboxes back into the same store will result in one store being the
size of the sum of all 5 stores combined...  Am I right there??

 

Any suggestions now that they are separated and essentially is just
taking up more space...

Re: Small Fopah

2008-10-09 Thread Sherry Abercrombie

I have multiple stores with multiple DB's each (2-3).  I haven't been able
to sell mgmt. on mailbox quotas, however, they do allow me to to mailbox
cleanup, deleting anything older than 45 days.  It's a pretty good system
that keeps the mailbox databases at a relatively stable size.

This is, as has been stated, best practice for E2K3.  I recently had a
chance to put this to the test.  I had a single database that would not
successfully backup, after reading some info from this list, I made the
recommendation to mgmt. of what the best possible scenario for recovery
without loss of data was and got the go ahead to do it.  I created a new
database, and moved the mailboxes from the probable corrupted database to
the new one, then dismounted the bad database, and deleted it.  It only
impacted a small group of people rather than the entire organization, and
resolved the issue.  I was even able to do it during normal business hours
because the only time interuption of service happened was when that persons
mailbox was actually being moved, which only took a few minutes each.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Michael B. Smith 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
 target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

 If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

 If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
 passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

 These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
 values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
 store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

 MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
 mailbox stores.

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


 -Original Message-
 From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Small Fopah

 One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
 2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
 gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never
 could
 have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
 wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
 tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
 hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

 We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
 each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
 remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
 random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
 offline after that.

 We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
 way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
 the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
 spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
 an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
 I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
 The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
 cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
 into cleaning out the garbage.

 Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
 and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains
 100
 GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than
 the
 100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
 empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
 grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
 placeholder, waiting to be filled.

 Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
 the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
 large store.



 Michelle Weaver
 Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
 Penn State University




 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: Small Fopah

 Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)



 Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
 Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise



 The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
 the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12
 to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the
 line..yadda yadda..



 Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending

Re: Small Fopah

2008-10-09 Thread James Wells

Michael,

Are those documented somewhere (I believe you - I've always asked for
those as something other than a services deliverable, and never got
them).

--James


On 10/9/08, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
 target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

 If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

 If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
 passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

 These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
 values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
 store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

 MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
 mailbox stores.

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


 -Original Message-
 From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Small Fopah

 One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
 2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
 gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
 have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
 wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
 tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
 hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

 We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
 each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
 remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
 random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
 offline after that.

 We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
 way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
 the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
 spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
 an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
 I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
 The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
 cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
 into cleaning out the garbage.

 Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
 and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains 100
 GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than the
 100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
 empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
 grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
 placeholder, waiting to be filled.

 Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
 the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
 large store.



 Michelle Weaver
 Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
 Penn State University




 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: Small Fopah

 Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)



 Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
 Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise



 The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
 the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12
 to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the
 line..yadda yadda..



 Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending
 money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups..  Admin Staff, Finance,
 Sales, etc..

 The desire was to be able to recover someone's folder or data more
 quickly than having to do an entire IS recovery of all mailboxes and
 just recover the depts. Store data..



 So I broke it up knowing that SIS would be lost if Email went across
 stores.. It was brought up to mgmt but they said the majority of email
 was dept localized.  I didn't think so and did not fight hard enough,
 but.. Now fast forward a year and we are sitting with 5 stores but oh
 look they all have grown at about the same rate because they send email
 to everyone regardless so I now make a copy 5 times for every email and
 attachment..

 Did I mention that they refused to set store limits and mandated 20gig
 file transfers allowed via SMTP..Oh I lost that one hard... CEO had to
 be able to send videos to his other buddies and the dept heads as well..



 So now the

Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database? How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog:
http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michaelhttp://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never
could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains
100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than
the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
large store.

Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah

Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)

Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise

The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12
to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the
line..yadda yadda..

Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending
money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups.. Admin Staff, Finance,
Sales, etc..

The desire was to be able to recover someone's folder or data more
quickly than having to do an entire IS recovery of all mailboxes and
just recover the depts. Store data..

So I broke it up knowing that SIS would be lost if Email went across
stores.. It was brought up to mgmt but they said the majority of email
was dept localized. I didn't think so and did not fight hard enough,
but.. Now fast forward a year and we are sitting with 5 stores but oh
look they all have grown at about the same rate because they send email
to everyone regardless so I now make a copy 5 times for every email and
attachment..

Did I mention that they refused to set store limits and mandated 20gig
file transfers allowed via SMTP..Oh I lost that one hard... CEO had to
be able to send videos to his other buddies and the dept heads as well..

So now the question...I am 99.% sure that

Forefront Security For Exchange Quarantining.

We had a filter setup to quarantine all ZIP files for review before releasing 
them.  I would then forward the quarantined file over to myself and try saving 
it locally (using the local virus engine as an extra layer of protection).

However, after we applied Forefront SP1 and Exchange SP1 over the weekend, our 
settings seem to have been overwritten.  Now, anytime I quarantine a zip file 
on the Edge server, and then try to forward it on to myself for a manual 
review, it is re-quarantined on the Edge Server.

Has anybody else had any problems with SP1 overwriting their settings?

Is anybody else quarantining files for manual review before releasing them?  If 
so, how do you manually review them?

Thanks.

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Small Fopah

2008-10-09 Thread Moss, Sue

I bet *you* have  :-)

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups,
you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50
GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is,
backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you
exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum
size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size
of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in
Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We
had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We
never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one
backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No
matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files
never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness
all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several
databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB.
I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have
been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with
Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A
silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care
much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete
freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after
hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back.
Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more
than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included
instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also
shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big
purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database
remains 100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get
bigger than the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required
to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the
amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data
is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running
it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best
practice, not one
large store.

Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah

Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)

Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my
Stores.
Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise

The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite
large and
the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have
taken 12
to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the
line..yadda yadda..

Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without
spending
money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups..  Admin Staff,
Finance,
Sales, etc..

RE: Small Fopah

Easily done:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb331954(EXCHG.80).aspx

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:54 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

Michael,

Are those documented somewhere (I believe you - I've always asked for
those as something other than a services deliverable, and never got
them).

--James


On 10/9/08, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you
should
 target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

 If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

 If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
 passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

 These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
 values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
 store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

 MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
 mailbox stores.

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


 -Original Message-
 From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Small Fopah

 One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
 2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
 gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never
could
 have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
 wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
 tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never
purged,
 hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

 We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
 each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
 remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
 random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
 offline after that.

 We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly,
silly
 way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
 the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
 spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then
ran
 an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
 I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500
MB).
 The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
 cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
 into cleaning out the garbage.

 Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge
effort
 and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains
100
 GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than
the
 100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
 empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
 grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
 placeholder, waiting to be filled.

 Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
 the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
 large store.



 Michelle Weaver
 Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
 Penn State University




 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: Small Fopah

 Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)



 Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
 Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise



 The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
 the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12
 to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the
 line..yadda yadda..



 Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending
 money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups..  Admin Staff, Finance,
 Sales, etc..

 The desire was to be able to recover someone's folder or data more
 quickly than having to do an entire IS recovery of all mailboxes and
 just recover the depts. Store data..



 So I broke it up knowing that SIS would be lost if Email went across
 stores.. It was brought up to mgmt but they said the majority of email
 was dept localized.  I didn't think so and did not fight hard enough,
 but.. Now fast forward a year

RE: Small Fopah

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
up. The project was - you guessed - to make it manageable.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

 

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.


Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange



-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains 100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
large store.



Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah

Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)



Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise



The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12
to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the
line..yadda yadda..



Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending
money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups..  Admin Staff, Finance,
Sales, etc..

The desire was to be able to recover someone's folder or data more
quickly than having to do an entire IS recovery of all mailboxes and
just recover the depts. Store data..



So I broke it up knowing that SIS would be lost if Email went across
stores.. It was brought up to mgmt but they said the majority of email
was dept localized.  I didn't think so and did not fight hard enough,
but.. Now fast forward a year and we are sitting with 5 stores but oh
look they all have grown at about the same rate because they send email
to everyone

Mask exchange 2007 server

2008-10-09 Thread Sascha Riela

Hello,
we have a new exchange 2007 environment with exchange 2007 CCR and two CAS/HUB 
server. There is no edge server. Does anyone of you know how to mask a server ? 
I don't want to show the server name and ip on outside mails in the header.

Thanks
For your help
Sascha



~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
up. The project was – you guessed – to make it manageable.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog:
http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michaelhttp://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

*From:* Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM
*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database? How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
large store.

Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah

Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)

Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise

Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending
money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups.. Admin Staff, Finance,
Sales, etc..

The desire was to be able to recover someone's folder or data more
quickly than having to do an entire IS recovery of all mailboxes and
just recover the depts. Store data..

So I broke it up knowing that

RE: Small Fopah

2008-10-09 Thread Moss, Sue

If you really want to do this, the answer to your question depends on
whether or not you have DIR, since DIR gets lost during a mailbox move.
There's also the white space you can subtract from the total.
 
Suggestions?  How about archiving?
 
I think about SIS from time to time, but it's not the driving force for
our configuration and I would never reconfigure based on that alone.



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:27 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah



Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)

 

Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise

 

The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12
to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the
line..yadda yadda..

 

Mgmt was not happy with that wanted it to be lower without spending
money and wanted the stores broken up by Groups..  Admin Staff, Finance,
Sales, etc..

The desire was to be able to recover someone's folder or data more
quickly than having to do an entire IS recovery of all mailboxes and
just recover the depts. Store data..

 

So I broke it up knowing that SIS would be lost if Email went across
stores.. It was brought up to mgmt but they said the majority of email
was dept localized.  I didn't think so and did not fight hard enough,
but.. Now fast forward a year and we are sitting with 5 stores but oh
look they all have grown at about the same rate because they send email
to everyone regardless so I now make a copy 5 times for every email and
attachment..

Did I mention that they refused to set store limits and mandated 20gig
file transfers allowed via SMTP..Oh I lost that one hard... CEO had to
be able to send videos to his other buddies and the dept heads as well..

 

So now the question...I am 99.% sure that moving all of the
mailboxes back into the same store will result in one store being the
size of the sum of all 5 stores combined...  Am I right there??

 

Any suggestions now that they are separated and essentially is just
taking up more space...  

 

Thanks


Greg

 

 


 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Small Fopah

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

He probably broke into a Happy Dance singing Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching all the way
to the bank.

Webster

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
up. The project was - you guessed - to make it manageable.

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: databse currpted

No export all of the mailboxes to pst files.  Create a new store. Delete the
old store.  Import the mailboxes.  Sounds like you should have ms on the
line when you do this.  It's a good idea if for no other reason than to
cover your rear.
M

-Original Message-
From: Nirav Doshi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:08 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: re: databse currpted

just want to confirm that to overcome this issue i have one idea i.e
i dismount the store  i will copy priv1.edb file  priv1.stm file. Now i
rename the both file with priv1_old.edb  priv1_old.stm file now i mount the
database it will ask that you want to mount blank database say yes. now
throught exmerge i can upload the mail box. 
just i want to know that weather this idea will work or not? 
i done in my test enviroment but i am not sure
~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Small Fopah

In front of a client I am always the consummate professional. I kept it
inside until I got back to the hotel that night.

 

(That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

 

(In general, people paying my rates don't like to be laughed at!)

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

 

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
up. The project was - you guessed - to make it manageable.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM 


To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

 

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.


Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains 100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
large store.



Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University




-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah

Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)



Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise



The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
the recovery time with our current backup tape drive would have taken 12
to 14 hours..So Veritas estimated.. verified with a tech on the

Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a Journaling 
Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new rule, under 
Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.  Groups do not 
appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Small Fopah

In general people paying you don't like to laughed at  I've figured this
out after years of research.  My friends call me Winchester.

  _  

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:06 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

In front of a client I am always the consummate professional. I kept it
inside until I got back to the hotel that night.

(That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

(In general, people paying my rates don't like to be laughed at!)

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
up. The project was - you guessed - to make it manageable.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM 

To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains 100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
large store.

Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah

Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)

Well I

RE: Small Fopah

More coffee = better grammar.  In general people paying you don't like to BE
laughed at.  Glasses on face may help too.  =)

  _  

From: Matt Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:12 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

In general people paying you don't like to laughed at  I've figured this
out after years of research.  My friends call me Winchester.

  _  

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:06 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

In front of a client I am always the consummate professional. I kept it
inside until I got back to the hotel that night.

(That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.)

(In general, people paying my rates don't like to be laughed at!)

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
up. The project was - you guessed - to make it manageable.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM 

To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains 100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
large store.

Michelle Weaver
Systems

RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: Journaling

2008-10-09 Thread Micheal Espinola Jr

nmi?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 NMI.



-- 
ME2

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage 
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Journaling

 -Original Message-
 From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: Journaling

 nmi?

I doubt he means non maskable interrupt, probably No Messaging
Information.

 On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Michael B. Smith
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  NMI.

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: Journaling

2008-10-09 Thread Micheal Espinola Jr

ah. ty.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Need More Information.

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


 -Original Message-
 From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:35 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: Re: Journaling

 nmi?

 On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Michael B. Smith
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 NMI.



 --
 ME2

 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
 ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
 ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~




-- 
ME2

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Journaling

You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
PowerShell.

Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
-managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Small Fopah

From: Matt Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

More coffee = better grammar.  In general people paying you don't like to BE
laughed at.  Glasses on face may help too.  =)

Shot glasses or eye glasses? J

Webster

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Small Fopah

2008-10-09 Thread Maglinger, Paul

How did you refrain from hysterics?

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was
never backed up. The project was - you guessed - to make it manageable.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM 

To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups,
you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50
GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is,
backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you
exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum
size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size
of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in
Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We
had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We
never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one
backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No
matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files
never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness
all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several
databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB.
I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have
been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with
Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A
silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care
much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete
freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after
hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back.
Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more
than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included
instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also
shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big
purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database
remains 100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get
bigger than the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required
to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the
amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data
is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running
it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best
practice, not one
large store.

Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange

Re: Small Fopah

Still laughing because they were warned ahead of time that this was bad
mojo...

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Don Ely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I'm still laughing...

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 8:56 AM, Maglinger, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:

How did you refrain from hysterics?

--
*From:* Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:50 AM

*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file
size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never
backed up. The project was – you guessed – to make it manageable.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog:
http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michaelhttp://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

*From:* Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM
*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database? How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you
should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never
could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never
purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases
in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been
some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange
going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly,
silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then
ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500
MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed
them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge
effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains
100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than
the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get
the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is considered best practice, not one
large store.

Michelle Weaver
Systems Administrator, Materials Research Institute
Penn State University

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wed 10/8/2008 8:26 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Small Fopah

Oh magic genies of Exchange, (Rubbing furiously)

Well I believe about a year ago I made a Exchange Fopah with my Stores.
Exch 2003 Sp2, Enterprise

The thinking was that data in the main Store is growing quite large and
the recovery time with our current backup

RE: Journaling

Wow, you would think you could just select/create a distribution group and 
journal everybody that's a member.  Seems much more simple.

This powershell thing is for the birds (in my opinion highly regarded by 
nobody). :)

Thanks for the help though!

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
PowerShell.

Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
-managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Small Fopah

I find, in more and more companies that I go into, that their daily
operations are governed by fear.

 

The technicians/administrators/engineers are afraid to make changes -
because they don't know what will happen. They are afraid to bring a problem
to the eyes of management - because they are afraid that they will get
fired. They were brought in after someone else and they don't understand the
why of something and they don't ask - because they are afraid they will look
stupid.

 

I spend a lot of time going in and calming people down and saying no
problem. Or yes you have an issue, but it's easy to fix. That's probably
90%+ of my engagements.

 

The others - well, they can be challenging.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:56 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

 

How did you refrain from hysterics?

 

  _  

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
up. The project was - you guessed - to make it manageable.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM 


To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

 

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.


Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for
cleaning up mailboxes. It offended many customers, but it also shamed them
into cleaning out the garbage.

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains 100
GB, but the store still has 50 GB to grow before it will get bigger than the
100 GB it was before the cleanup. An offline defrag is required to get the
empty space back, but the store won't grow again until the amount of data
grows back to the original size, as if that empty 50 GB of data is just a
placeholder, waiting to be filled.

Either way, you didn't commit a faux pas. The way you're running it, with
the exception of the no quota thing, is

RE: Journaling

Far be it from me to tell you that there is no way to do that. I simply
don't know how myself.

Exchange 2007 is a huge beast.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:04 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Wow, you would think you could just select/create a distribution group and
journal everybody that's a member.  Seems much more simple.

This powershell thing is for the birds (in my opinion highly regarded by
nobody). :)

Thanks for the help though!

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
PowerShell.

Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
-managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: Small Fopah

Agreed... No fear here... They don't accuse me of being deliberate and
blunt for nothing around here... :P

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I find, in more and more companies that I go into, that their daily
operations are governed by fear.

The technicians/administrators/engineers are afraid to make changes –
because they don't know what will happen. They are afraid to bring a problem
to the eyes of management – because they are afraid that they will get
fired. They were brought in after someone else and they don't understand the
why of something and they don't ask – because they are afraid they will look
stupid.

I spend a lot of time going in and calming people down and saying no
problem. Or yes you have an issue, but it's easy to fix. That's probably
90%+ of my engagements.

The others – well, they can be challenging.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog:
http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michaelhttp://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

*From:* Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:56 AM

*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* RE: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterics?

*From:* Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:50 AM
*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
up. The project was – you guessed – to make it manageable.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog:
http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michaelhttp://theessentialexchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

*From:* Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM

*To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues
*Subject:* Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database? How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

Remember, if the size of the database is 100 GB prior to a big purge effort
and the customers delete 50 GB of crap, the size of the database remains
100

RE: Journaling

No, I think you are correct sir.  I couldn't find any other way to do it.

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Far be it from me to tell you that there is no way to do that. I simply
don't know how myself.

Exchange 2007 is a huge beast.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:04 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Wow, you would think you could just select/create a distribution group and
journal everybody that's a member.  Seems much more simple.

This powershell thing is for the birds (in my opinion highly regarded by
nobody). :)

Thanks for the help though!

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
PowerShell.

Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
-managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Journaling

OK, I looked it up and tested it. (Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 - The
Complete Reference - by Richard Luckett, William Lefkovics, and Bharat
Suneja)

You need Premium CALs for this.

First you create a security group/distribution group with UNIVERSAL scope
and populate it.

Then go to Organization Configuration - Hub Transport - Journaling and
create a new rule. You can select any universal group for the recipient.

Works fine, no problem. Local and global groups don't work. Must be
universal.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Far be it from me to tell you that there is no way to do that. I simply
don't know how myself.

Exchange 2007 is a huge beast.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:04 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Wow, you would think you could just select/create a distribution group and
journal everybody that's a member.  Seems much more simple.

This powershell thing is for the birds (in my opinion highly regarded by
nobody). :)

Thanks for the help though!

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
PowerShell.

Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
-managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Journaling

I need to get that book.

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

OK, I looked it up and tested it. (Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 - The
Complete Reference - by Richard Luckett, William Lefkovics, and Bharat
Suneja)

You need Premium CALs for this.

First you create a security group/distribution group with UNIVERSAL scope
and populate it.

Then go to Organization Configuration - Hub Transport - Journaling and
create a new rule. You can select any universal group for the recipient.

Works fine, no problem. Local and global groups don't work. Must be
universal.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Far be it from me to tell you that there is no way to do that. I simply
don't know how myself.

Exchange 2007 is a huge beast.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:04 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Wow, you would think you could just select/create a distribution group and
journal everybody that's a member.  Seems much more simple.

This powershell thing is for the birds (in my opinion highly regarded by
nobody). :)

Thanks for the help though!

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
PowerShell.

Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
-managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Migrating from one host to another, issues?

2008-10-09 Thread Rich

We have lost confidence in our current host and I have been tasked with finding 
and migrating to a new host...

They basically host our Exchange (2007) and BES servers, our users use only OWA 
for email access. I have full access to the servers and manage the users and 
lists but thats about as far as I go. 

My question is: Can our current host (or myself) create .pst files for each 
account on the server side? 

Is there another way to migrate the users accounts without pst files?

Thanks in advance for your time...

Rich 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Migrating from one host to another, issues?

Wellthere are a couple of answer to that question.

Depends on your new host, really. Exchange 2007 sp1 is REALLY good at database 
portability. AS long as the domain name and the organization name are the same, 
you can pick up the database from one server, move it to another server, 
isinteg it, and be good to go. Then you just have to go through and reconnect 
all your users to their mailboxes. If you keep the same user names, that takes 
like 2 minutes.

However, while that works just fine, the supportability of it may be a little 
in question.

Using export-mailbox on the outgoing side and import-mailbox on the incoming 
side; or using move-mailbox if you have forest trusts are the recommended 
solutions.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: Rich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:36 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Migrating from one host to another, issues?

We have lost confidence in our current host and I have been tasked with finding 
and migrating to a new host...

They basically host our Exchange (2007) and BES servers, our users use only OWA 
for email access. I have full access to the servers and manage the users and 
lists but thats about as far as I go. 

My question is: Can our current host (or myself) create .pst files for each 
account on the server side? 

Is there another way to migrate the users accounts without pst files?

Thanks in advance for your time...

Rich 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: Small Fopah

Agreed!!!  =0  
  - Original Message - 
  From: Don Ely 
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues 
  Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:11 AM
  Subject: Re: Small Fopah

  Agreed...  No fear here...  They don't accuse me of being deliberate and 
blunt for nothing around here...  :P

  On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I find, in more and more companies that I go into, that their daily 
operations are governed by fear.

The technicians/administrators/engineers are afraid to make changes – 
because they don't know what will happen. They are afraid to bring a problem to 
the eyes of management – because they are afraid that they will get fired. They 
were brought in after someone else and they don't understand the why of 
something and they don't ask – because they are afraid they will look stupid.

I spend a lot of time going in and calming people down and saying no 
problem. Or yes you have an issue, but it's easy to fix. That's probably 
90%+ of my engagements.

The others – well, they can be challenging.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:56 AM 

To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterics?

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:50 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed 
up. The project was – you guessed – to make it manageable.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM 

To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Small Fopah

Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
mailbox stores.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Small Fopah

One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
offline after that.

We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran
an offline defrag on the emptied store to get the space back. Every month
I'd send notes to people with extremely large mailboxes (more than 500 MB).
The subject line read Piggy mailboxes, and I included instructions for

Re: Small Fopah

Shot glasses only make me type with reckless abandon.  Opinion circuits turned 
up to 10.  I don't need no stinking spell check!
  - Original Message - 
  From: Webster 
  To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues 
  Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 8:31 AM
  Subject: RE: Small Fopah


  From: Matt Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  Subject: RE: Small Fopah

   

  More coffee = better grammar.  In general people paying you don't like to BE 
laughed at.  Glasses on face may help too.  =)

   

  Shot glasses or eye glasses? J

   

   

  Webster





~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Migrating from one host to another, issues?

2008-10-09 Thread Rich

OK I will check on these options.

Thanks for your time!!

Rich
~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Journaling

Well this is interesting.  That did indeed work for me, but I ran into a little 
problem.  After creating the group and adding several users, I wanted to delete 
people from the group to see if we could just add/subtract people on the fly as 
litigation holds changed.  So far, an hour after subtracting people from the 
Universal Group, the Journaling Rule is still reporting on messages sent 
to/from the people that USED to be in the Universal group.

I disabled and re-enabled the journaling rule, but no change.

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

OK, I looked it up and tested it. (Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 - The
Complete Reference - by Richard Luckett, William Lefkovics, and Bharat
Suneja)

You need Premium CALs for this.

First you create a security group/distribution group with UNIVERSAL scope
and populate it.

Then go to Organization Configuration - Hub Transport - Journaling and
create a new rule. You can select any universal group for the recipient.

Works fine, no problem. Local and global groups don't work. Must be
universal.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Far be it from me to tell you that there is no way to do that. I simply
don't know how myself.

Exchange 2007 is a huge beast.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:04 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Wow, you would think you could just select/create a distribution group and
journal everybody that's a member.  Seems much more simple.

This powershell thing is for the birds (in my opinion highly regarded by
nobody). :)

Thanks for the help though!

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
PowerShell.

Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
-managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

Thanks!

Rob

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets

RE: Journaling

Welcome to store caching. Works as intended.

I know I've written one or more articles about this. Yep:

http://slipstick.com/emo/2008/up081002.htm#1

is at least one, and there are probably others.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:55 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Well this is interesting.  That did indeed work for me, but I ran into a
little problem.  After creating the group and adding several users, I wanted
to delete people from the group to see if we could just add/subtract people
on the fly as litigation holds changed.  So far, an hour after subtracting
people from the Universal Group, the Journaling Rule is still reporting on
messages sent to/from the people that USED to be in the Universal group.

I disabled and re-enabled the journaling rule, but no change.

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:24 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

OK, I looked it up and tested it. (Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 - The
Complete Reference - by Richard Luckett, William Lefkovics, and Bharat
Suneja)

You need Premium CALs for this.

First you create a security group/distribution group with UNIVERSAL scope
and populate it.

Then go to Organization Configuration - Hub Transport - Journaling and
create a new rule. You can select any universal group for the recipient.

Works fine, no problem. Local and global groups don't work. Must be
universal.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:09 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Far be it from me to tell you that there is no way to do that. I simply
don't know how myself.

Exchange 2007 is a huge beast.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:04 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

Wow, you would think you could just select/create a distribution group and
journal everybody that's a member.  Seems much more simple.

This powershell thing is for the birds (in my opinion highly regarded by
nobody). :)

Thanks for the help though!

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
PowerShell.

Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
-managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
group.

Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

NMI.

What version of Exchange?

What document are you reading?

In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
Managed Content Settings.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

-Original Message-
From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Journaling

According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
Groups do not appear.

How

Re: Journaling

2008-10-09 Thread Tom Kern

Restart transport.
DL membership is cached for 4 hrs for journal rules


On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:55 PM, McCready, Rob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Well this is interesting.  That did indeed work for me, but I ran into a 
 little problem.  After creating the group and adding several users, I wanted 
 to delete people from the group to see if we could just add/subtract people 
 on the fly as litigation holds changed.  So far, an hour after subtracting 
 people from the Universal Group, the Journaling Rule is still reporting on 
 messages sent to/from the people that USED to be in the Universal group.

 I disabled and re-enabled the journaling rule, but no change.

 -Original Message-
 From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:24 PM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Journaling

 OK, I looked it up and tested it. (Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 - The
 Complete Reference - by Richard Luckett, William Lefkovics, and Bharat
 Suneja)

 You need Premium CALs for this.

 First you create a security group/distribution group with UNIVERSAL scope
 and populate it.

 Then go to Organization Configuration - Hub Transport - Journaling and
 create a new rule. You can select any universal group for the recipient.

 Works fine, no problem. Local and global groups don't work. Must be
 universal.

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


 -Original Message-
 From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:09 PM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Journaling

 Far be it from me to tell you that there is no way to do that. I simply
 don't know how myself.

 Exchange 2007 is a huge beast.

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


 -Original Message-
 From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 12:04 PM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Journaling

 Wow, you would think you could just select/create a distribution group and
 journal everybody that's a member.  Seems much more simple.

 This powershell thing is for the birds (in my opinion highly regarded by
 nobody). :)

 Thanks for the help though!

 Rob

 -Original Message-
 From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:53 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Journaling

 You can create a single rule - a Managed Folder Mailbox Policy.

 But it has to be individually assigned to the users. Easily done in
 PowerShell.

 Create a file listing the names of the users involved.

 gc filename.txt | set-mailbox -managedfoldermailboxpolicyallowed $true
 -managedfoldermailboxpolicy name-of-policy

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


 -Original Message-
 From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:45 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Journaling

 I'm using Exchange 2007 with SP1.  I'd like to setup a rule that says

 Journal these 25 specific users email messages regardless of their storage
 group.

 Can that be done in one swoop, without setting up 25 individual rules?

 -Original Message-
 From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:29 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Journaling

 NMI.

 What version of Exchange?

 What document are you reading?

 In general, a journal recipient is the mailbox that is the journal
 DESTINATION. Not a journal source.

 In Exchange 2003, journaling was per mailbox store only. In Exchange 2007,
 you can still do it per mailbox store, but you can also do it by using
 Managed Content Settings.

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 -Original Message-
 From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:13 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: Journaling

 According to the document I'm reading, I should be able to setup a
 Journaling Rule for a certain group of people.  However, when I create a new
 rule, under Journal messages for recipient, I can only select ONE person.
 Groups do not appear.

 How can I create a rule to Journal for a specific group of users?

 Thanks!

 Rob

 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
 ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


 ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
 ~

Recovering from Deleted Items

2008-10-09 Thread Brown, Larry

Exchange 2007 SP 1 CCR. Outlook 2003

When doing a mailbox restore using the Database Recovery Management tool and a 
Recovery Storage Group, I've noticed that the recovered mailbox Deleted Items 
folder has a large amount of email.  If it was just one or two users I'd assume 
they changed our default setting of cleaning out the Deleted Items when closing 
Outlook.  But I see it for everyone.

So...is the DB Recovery Man. Tool pulling everything out of the deleted items 
cache and putting them back in to the Deleted Items folder for the recovery?

If so, is there any documentation someone can point me to so I can show the 
powers that be?

 Larry C. Brown


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Journaling

Further to my note, Web's note, and Tom's note: while -strictly speaking-
mailboxes are not used within the transport role, ESE engines and caching
ARE. Same things still apply.

(There are pseudo-mailboxes present on a transport server, but they aren't
easily visible.)

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange


-Original Message-
From: Webster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 2:05 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Journaling

 -Original Message-
 From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: Journaling
 
 Well this is interesting.  That did indeed work for me, but I ran into
 a little problem.  After creating the group and adding several users, I
 wanted to delete people from the group to see if we could just
 add/subtract people on the fly as litigation holds changed.  So far, an
 hour after subtracting people from the Universal Group, the Journaling
 Rule is still reporting on messages sent to/from the people that USED
 to be in the Universal group.
 
 I disabled and re-enabled the journaling rule, but no change.

You forgot the Michael B. Smith rule: Always wait at least 2 hours (and
sometimes up to 4 hours) for a change to propagate from AD to Exchange.

http://www.slipstick.com/emo/2008/up081002.htm

You have violated the rule.  You must now listen to 2 hours of William
Shatner music.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_m?url=search-alias%3Dpopularfield-keyword
s=william+shatner



Webster


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Journaling

 -Original Message-
 From: McCready, Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: RE: Journaling

 Well this is interesting.  That did indeed work for me, but I ran into
 a little problem.  After creating the group and adding several users, I
 wanted to delete people from the group to see if we could just
 add/subtract people on the fly as litigation holds changed.  So far, an
 hour after subtracting people from the Universal Group, the Journaling
 Rule is still reporting on messages sent to/from the people that USED
 to be in the Universal group.

 I disabled and re-enabled the journaling rule, but no change.

You forgot the Michael B. Smith rule: Always wait at least 2 hours (and
sometimes up to 4 hours) for a change to propagate from AD to Exchange.

http://www.slipstick.com/emo/2008/up081002.htm

You have violated the rule.  You must now listen to 2 hours of William
Shatner music.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_m?url=search-alias%3Dpopularfield-keyword
s=william+shatner

Webster

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

Re: Small Fopah

2008-10-09 Thread Steven Peck

The alternative is the engineers say things, report it, ask/beg/plead
but because the cause is partially other groups realms, managers
dance, duck, weave and avoid letting you do anything until you give
up.

My favorite was after 3 years and 4 open MS tickets, management blew
some of our remaining support stuff to have an engineer flown out to
evaluate performance for a week on our Exchange cluster.

In researching all the tickets they found mine (the first one) where I
had, on the initial call, sent a document outlining my conclusions
with data and technical links (management didn't like them) and the
FTE on site asked why was he here, his conclusions were the same.

We now are going to have dedicated storage for our Exchange.

Steven Peck
http://www.blkmtn.org

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Michael B. Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I find, in more and more companies that I go into, that their daily
 operations are governed by fear.



 The technicians/administrators/engineers are afraid to make changes –
 because they don't know what will happen. They are afraid to bring a problem
 to the eyes of management – because they are afraid that they will get
 fired. They were brought in after someone else and they don't understand the
 why of something and they don't ask – because they are afraid they will look
 stupid.



 I spend a lot of time going in and calming people down and saying no
 problem. Or yes you have an issue, but it's easy to fix. That's probably
 90%+ of my engagements.



 The others – well, they can be challenging.



 Regards,



 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange



 From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:56 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Small Fopah



 How did you refrain from hysterics?



 

 From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:50 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: Re: Small Fopah

 How did you refrain from hysterical laughter when you saw the file size?

 On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:41 AM, Michael B. Smith
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The largest exchange store I've ever seen was 3.5 TB. It was never backed
 up. The project was – you guessed – to make it manageable.



 Regards,



 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange



 From: Don Ely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:19 AM

 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: Re: Small Fopah



 Anyone ever seen a 600GB database?  How about 2 of them?

 On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 6:09 AM, Michael B. Smith
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Microsoft guidance says that if you are doing streaming backups, you should
 target 35 GB per store as an opti-max value, never exceeding 50 GB.

 If you are doing VSS backups, never exceed 100 GB.

 If you are doing continuous replication backups (that is, backing up the
 passive copy), never exceed 200 GB.

 These are recommendations, not we won't support you if you exceed these
 values. The right answer for a given company for the maximum size of a
 store is: whatever you can backup and restore within your SLA.

 MSFT recommends that you ignore SIS when planning for the size of your
 mailbox stores.

 Regards,

 Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
 My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
 Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 -Original Message-
 From: Michelle Weaver [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

 Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 1:05 AM
 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
 Subject: RE: Small Fopah

 One large store in Exchange 2003 isn't a good thing. I know in Exchange
 2000, one giant store worked fine, but in 2003, it changed. We had a
 gigantic store, 163 GB (or some ridiculous number like that). We never could
 have recovered it, and it wasn't backing up properly because one backup
 wouldn't be finished when the next one wanted to start. No matter how we
 tried to tweak the timing, it never seemed to work. Log files never purged,
 hard drives filled up, Exchange went offline. It was ugliness all around.

 We broke the one store into 4 information stores with several databases in
 each one, trying to keep the database files smaller than 30 GB. I can't
 remember where I found that magic number, very well could have been some
 random thing I dreamed up, but we didn't have problems with Exchange going
 offline after that.

 We had no mailbox quotas and no limit to attachments either. A silly, silly
 way to run Exchange, but the very importants didn't seem to care much for
 the finer points of the technology. They just wanted complete freedom. I
 spent a month moving mailboxes into the other stores, after hours, then ran

Export-Mailbox and Dumpster

2008-10-09 Thread Joseph L. Casale

Reading technet, I see:
If you export data to a .pst file by using the PSTFolderPath parameter, the 
Export-Mailbox cmdlet does not export messages from the dumpster.

So piping a Get-Mailbox with some filtering into this:
Export-Mailbox -PSTFolderPath:D:\Path  -MaxThreads:1 -Confirm:$false
should give the same size file that a manual export of all folders from OL to a 
pst does? But the cmdlet gives me 1.6 gig where OL gives me 200 meg for one 
box? How can I replicate the same behavior and not export anything else other 
than the current mailbox contents?

Thanks,
jlc

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Export-Mailbox and Dumpster

Define for me what manual export of all folders from OL to a pst means.

 

Regards,

 

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP

My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael

Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

 

From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:02 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Export-Mailbox and Dumpster

 

Reading technet, I see:

If you export data to a .pst file by using the PSTFolderPath parameter, the
Export-Mailbox cmdlet does not export messages from the dumpster.

So piping a Get-Mailbox with some filtering into this:

Export-Mailbox -PSTFolderPath:D:\Path  -MaxThreads:1 -Confirm:$false

should give the same size file that a manual export of all folders from OL
to a pst does? But the cmdlet gives me 1.6 gig where OL gives me 200 meg for
one box? How can I replicate the same behavior and not export anything else
other than the current mailbox contents?

 

Thanks,
jlc

 

 


~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Export-Mailbox and Dumpster

2008-10-09 Thread Joseph L. Casale

File - Import  Export - Export to a file - pst - choose the mailbox, 
include all subfolders.
That's ~200M, where the cmdlet gives me 1600M?

Thanks!
jlc

From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:13 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Export-Mailbox and Dumpster

Define for me what manual export of all folders from OL to a pst means.

Regards,

Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange

From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 12:02 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Export-Mailbox and Dumpster

Reading technet, I see:
If you export data to a .pst file by using the PSTFolderPath parameter, the 
Export-Mailbox cmdlet does not export messages from the dumpster.

So piping a Get-Mailbox with some filtering into this:
Export-Mailbox -PSTFolderPath:D:\Path  -MaxThreads:1 -Confirm:$false
should give the same size file that a manual export of all folders from OL to a 
pst does? But the cmdlet gives me 1.6 gig where OL gives me 200 meg for one 
box? How can I replicate the same behavior and not export anything else other 
than the current mailbox contents?

Thanks,
jlc

~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~
~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~

RE: Export-Mailbox and Dumpster