Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
For clarification, are you suggesting that the count be under 5,000 for inbox and subfolders, or just the inbox? I am not sure if those are calculated together since you can have top level folders outside the inbox also ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
-Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance For clarification, are you suggesting that the count be under 5,000 for inbox and subfolders, or just the inbox? I am not sure if those are calculated together since you can have top level folders outside the inbox also IIRC, MBS in a post a couple of months ago referred to the Inbox, Sent Items and Deleted items as the ones that should be under a certain item count. Webster ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
Correct. I'll try to dig up some links (there are KBs out there now on this; there were originally none). What matters is the critical path - both for common user operations and background tasks, Outlook in Online Mode+Exchange will keep a view of the Inbox,Sent,Calendar and I think one other folder. Exchange can't keep this view for every mailbox always, so some are always being overwritten. When Exchange has to re-generate that view, a large number of total items in it will degrade performance. Factor in an already overtaxed Exchange server, and the problem can have a very real client performance impact. For other folders (including user-created top level folders), the item count matters for views to be created, but they aren't in the critical list and won't be created unless needed by a client. Likewise - Outlook Cached Mode will greatly reduce this impact on the server, but things like archive products, VSAPI, delegation of folders are all back to Online mode. --James On 3/25/09, Webster carlwebs...@gmail.com wrote: -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance For clarification, are you suggesting that the count be under 5,000 for inbox and subfolders, or just the inbox? I am not sure if those are calculated together since you can have top level folders outside the inbox also IIRC, MBS in a post a couple of months ago referred to the Inbox, Sent Items and Deleted items as the ones that should be under a certain item count. Webster ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ -- Sent from my mobile device ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
Here you go: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx Contacts is the one you're missing. The new best practice limit is 20k items for Inbox/Sent Items 5k items for Contacts/Calendar. Thanks, Jeremy Phillips Director of Operations | Azaleos Corporation | T: 206.926.1945 | M: 540.322.7980 You rely on Exchange. We keep it running. -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:jam...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:24 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Correct. I'll try to dig up some links (there are KBs out there now on this; there were originally none). What matters is the critical path - both for common user operations and background tasks, Outlook in Online Mode+Exchange will keep a view of the Inbox,Sent,Calendar and I think one other folder. Exchange can't keep this view for every mailbox always, so some are always being overwritten. When Exchange has to re-generate that view, a large number of total items in it will degrade performance. Factor in an already overtaxed Exchange server, and the problem can have a very real client performance impact. For other folders (including user-created top level folders), the item count matters for views to be created, but they aren't in the critical list and won't be created unless needed by a client. Likewise - Outlook Cached Mode will greatly reduce this impact on the server, but things like archive products, VSAPI, delegation of folders are all back to Online mode. --James On 3/25/09, Webster carlwebs...@gmail.com wrote: -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance For clarification, are you suggesting that the count be under 5,000 for inbox and subfolders, or just the inbox? I am not sure if those are calculated together since you can have top level folders outside the inbox also IIRC, MBS in a post a couple of months ago referred to the Inbox, Sent Items and Deleted items as the ones that should be under a certain item count. Webster ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ -- Sent from my mobile device ~ 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: Large Mailboxes Performance
I use Jatheon. I'm quite happy with it. It's been humming along now for 1.5 years. Not as convenient as stubbing for the end user. - Original Message - From: Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:15:14 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM, mqcarp mqcarpen...@gmail.com wrote: Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? We don't currently use one. We probably need one. Budget and time constraints have meant that we don't have one yet. -- Ben ~ 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: Large Mailboxes Performance
I was viewing an Inbox with around 15,000 items in it the other day (Exchange 2007 mailbox). It wasn't uncomfortable by any means (compared to the equivalent experience on Exchange 2003) but I'd still hesitate to recommend anything above 10,000. But you're right, it all depends on the server. From: bounce-8464754-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-8464754-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: 23 March 2009 14:36 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.commailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
I would have to agree with Kevin on this. It's the item count that matters. Thanks, Jeremy Phillips -Original Message- From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:09 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I would not do stubs.. If I was going to archive the archive would only be accessible via some other tool. Otherwise I still have Item count and with the current DB design that is not the best idea Performance wise. Then, I tend to do things differently than most people, I like the simplest approach possible. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: Jason Benway [mailto:benw...@jsjcorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Kevin, could you please explain why you don't care for stubs? How would you recommend archiving for Exchange if you want to reduce the size of the store and keep the method of accessing the archived emails through outlook,OWA,smartphones? Thanks,jb -Original Message- From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
Absolutely no issues here, as long as the inbox is 2000 Items.Many 10GB mailboxes here... Olk03 and Olk07 Keep your workstation file-level virus scanners off them too. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com mailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
Thanks Sam. You mean keep the file level virus scanner off the OSTs? Shay From: Sam Cayze [mailto:sam.ca...@rollouts.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:51 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Absolutely no issues here, as long as the inbox is 2000 Items.Many 10GB mailboxes here... Olk03 and Olk07 Keep your workstation file-level virus scanners off them too. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.commailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
I dont think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs . Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.commailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
Its all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as youve designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I dont think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs . Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
The item numbers are becoming less and less of an issues with the latest Outlook Patches, and Exchange Roll ups (Microsoft Fixed some stuff). The new numbers of Items per folder are between 5-10k now (test at your own risk and make sure). The issue with Items in a folder has to do with how Exchange reads in the folder index every time it changes. A new message basically means a reindex of the folder. This causes a heap of expensive random I/O's and means that the bigger issue with a mailbox size is not the size of the items but the number of items. Next versions, wave 14, the numbers should hit 100,000 items for folder before you see a performance impact. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Sam Cayze [mailto:sam.ca...@rollouts.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:51 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Absolutely no issues here, as long as the inbox is 2000 Items.Many 10GB mailboxes here... Olk03 and Olk07 Keep your workstation file-level virus scanners off them too. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.commailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.commailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
wave 14, the numbers should hit 100,000 items WOW! From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:49 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance The item numbers are becoming less and less of an issues with the latest Outlook Patches, and Exchange Roll ups (Microsoft Fixed some stuff). The new numbers of Items per folder are between 5-10k now (test at your own risk and make sure). The issue with Items in a folder has to do with how Exchange reads in the folder index every time it changes. A new message basically means a reindex of the folder. This causes a heap of expensive random I/O's and means that the bigger issue with a mailbox size is not the size of the items but the number of items. Next versions, wave 14, the numbers should hit 100,000 items for folder before you see a performance impact. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca http://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Sam Cayze [mailto:sam.ca...@rollouts.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:51 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Absolutely no issues here, as long as the inbox is 2000 Items.Many 10GB mailboxes here... Olk03 and Olk07 Keep your workstation file-level virus scanners off them too. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
You made me go and look, didnt you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasnt 100% correct. Turns out that its the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca http://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Its all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as youve designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I dont think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs . Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
It is per folder. Not per mailbox. So less than 5K in the inbox, less than 5K in sent items, etc. From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:51 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca http://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Its all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as youve designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I dont think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs . Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
I shoot for under 5K. From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didnt you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasnt 100% correct. Turns out that its the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca http://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Its all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as youve designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I dont think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs . Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
I tell my users 2k, 'cause they end up at 5k. If I told them 5k, they would end up at 10k :) From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:16 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I shoot for under 5K. From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca http://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
I was hoping it would a quick look. = ] ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? :) I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.commailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
And for now that is a good target to shoot at... Where's Andy Michael David when you need a good come back = ] ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:16 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I shoot for under 5K. From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? :) I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.commailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
It's only Monday, so I've been biting my tongue over here. My tongue hurts now. -- ME2 On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 12:28 PM, KevinM kev...@wlkmmas.org wrote: And for now that is a good target to shoot at… Where’s Andy Michael David when you need a good come back = ] ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 8:16 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I shoot for under 5K. *From:* Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn’t you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn’t 100% correct. Turns out that it’s the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx *From:* KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] *Sent:* 23 March 2009 14:51 *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca *From:* Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It’s all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you’ve designed your infrastructure correctly) *From:* Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] *Sent:* 23 March 2009 13:58 *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on “Control the items in their folders”? Thanks Shay *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don’t think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. *From:* Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM *To:* MS-Exchange Admin Issues *Subject:* Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs…. Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didnt you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasnt 100% correct. Turns out that its the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca http://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Its all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as youve designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I dont think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs . Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Mayo, Shay shay.m...@absg.com wrote: Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. We're not on Exchange 2007 yet, only 2003. But my experience echos what others have said: Exchange usually isn't the issue; performance bottlenecks will show up in Outlook much sooner. Keeping the number of items in a single folder down will help more than overall mailbox size. Pay particular attention to the special folders (Inbox, Sent Items, Drafts, Deleted Items, Calendar, Contacts, Notes, Tasks). Ideally, you want these to contain as few items as possible. Outlook hits all of these folders constantly, so a small slowdown in any of them gets magnified hugely. Even if the user just has a second set of folders for Inbox and Sent and moves everything over once a day, it will still help. The first time you sync a pre-existing mailbox to a new computer, it will spend bloody forever downloading everything from the server. Not much you can do about that. I try to put them on Gigabit Ethernet on the same switch as the Exchange server. I've found that once the OST goes over 3 or 4 gigs, OST I/O starts to impact Windows as a whole, especially when Outlook is first started. Also, the built-in Windows defrag isn't able to defrag it anymore. We actually went so far as create a separate, dedicated partition for the OST file for a few users, and found it gave a noticeable improvement. YMMV. If the users don't need frequent/offline/search for some old mail, you can use Public Folders and/or separate Exchange Mailboxes to archive stuff to, and exclude those from the OST sync entirely. Kind of like the archive to PST scenario, except you're not putting all your eggs in that woefully fragile PST basket. -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn’t you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn’t 100% correct. Turns out that it’s the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It’s all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you’ve designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on “Control the items in their folders”? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don’t think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs…. Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http
Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM, mqcarp mqcarpen...@gmail.com wrote: Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? We don't currently use one. We probably need one. Budget and time constraints have meant that we don't have one yet. -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
We do (Zantaz EAS) but as I have not reached that 5000 number in any one of my 25 plus sub folders I haven't seen any issues. John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I,CompTIA A+, N+ -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:15 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM, mqcarp mqcarpen...@gmail.com wrote: Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? We don't currently use one. We probably need one. Budget and time constraints have meant that we don't have one yet. -- Ben ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~ CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja~
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
That's the one I was talking about that uped the numbers.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/ From: William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:54 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? :) I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.cahttp://www.hedonists.ca/ From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.commailto:s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the waiver of the attorney-client or any other privilege. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return
Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
Haven't caused any problems with us after 4 years of stubbed archiving. Now getting them to file the 80,000 messages that's a problem John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud - Original Message - From: KevinM kev...@wlkmmas.org To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Mon Mar 23 19:20:38 2009 Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and��� years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
And still an item in a folder, just because it's only 1k in size doesn't mean it doesn't count We stub after 30 days, but only to reduce total data storage in exchange db's. - John Barsodi -Original Message- From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group Ph. 469-365-7160 // s...@absg.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is addressed. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the sender, delete it and destroy it without reading it. Unintended transmission
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
I would not do stubs.. If I was going to archive the archive would only be accessible via some other tool. Otherwise I still have Item count and with the current DB design that is not the best idea Performance wise. Then, I tend to do things differently than most people, I like the simplest approach possible. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: Jason Benway [mailto:benw...@jsjcorp.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:36 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Kevin, could you please explain why you don't care for stubs? How would you recommend archiving for Exchange if you want to reduce the size of the store and keep the method of accessing the archived emails through outlook,OWA,smartphones? Thanks,jb -Original Message- From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot
Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
I'm not Kevin but I'll answer anyway. Microsoft actually said last year in a whitepaper that they don't recommend stubbing, because of what was mentioned here - it saves on size certainly, but if a user never touches their Inbox again, 8 items will quickly become a performance problem. --James On 3/23/09, Jason Benway benw...@jsjcorp.com wrote: Kevin, could you please explain why you don't care for stubs? How would you recommend archiving for Exchange if you want to reduce the size of the store and keep the method of accessing the archived emails through outlook,OWA,smartphones? Thanks,jb -Original Message- From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly worried about performance from large OSTs Thanks Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator
RE: Large Mailboxes Performance
You can also mitigate this by forcing users to access archived msgs from the webgui(most archiving products have something like this). We have a very aggressive retention schedule so stubs only have a short life span then the Mailbox managed folder policy nukes them. :) - John Barsodi -Original Message- From: James Wells [mailto:jam...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:10 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance I'm not Kevin but I'll answer anyway. Microsoft actually said last year in a whitepaper that they don't recommend stubbing, because of what was mentioned here - it saves on size certainly, but if a user never touches their Inbox again, 8 items will quickly become a performance problem. --James On 3/23/09, Jason Benway benw...@jsjcorp.com wrote: Kevin, could you please explain why you don't care for stubs? How would you recommend archiving for Exchange if you want to reduce the size of the store and keep the method of accessing the archived emails through outlook,OWA,smartphones? Thanks,jb -Original Message- From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and ½ years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea
Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
Unfortunately we are required to archive 7 years of mail and even more unfortunate is the fact that we have to (on occasion) refer back to those early messages for legal reasons. I just have to make it happen, no excuses. John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud - Original Message - From: James Wells jam...@gmail.com To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Mon Mar 23 20:09:40 2009 Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance I'm not Kevin but I'll answer anyway. Microsoft actually said last year in a whitepaper that they don't recommend stubbing, because of what was mentioned here - it saves on size certainly, but if a user never touches their Inbox again, 8 items will quickly become a performance problem. --James On 3/23/09, Jason Benway benw...@jsjcorp.com wrote: Kevin, could you please explain why you don't care for stubs? How would you recommend archiving for Exchange if you want to reduce the size of the store and keep the method of accessing the archived emails through outlook,OWA,smartphones? Thanks,jb -Original Message- From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:21 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Large mailboxes.. stubs are the devil.. ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca -Original Message- From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 10:23 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance Is it safe to say no one in this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics will...@lefkovics.net wrote: I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February 2009. http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 also) From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:10 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance You made me go and look, didn't you? J I remember Ross Smith talking about this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping everything below 5k is always going to be better. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx From: KevinM [mailto:kev...@wlkmmas.org] Sent: 23 March 2009 14:51 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Do you mean total items in all folders or per folder? It is so hard to get a firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? ~Kevinm WLKMMAS My life http://www.hedonists.ca From: Neil Hobson [mailto:nhob...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders 5,000. In Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as you've designed your infrastructure correctly) From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: 23 March 2009 13:58 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey Martin, I do understand that it is more of an Outlook thing but can you elaborate on Control the items in their folders? Thanks Shay From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance I don't think large mailboxes from an Exchange perspective are a performance issue. The issue mainly lies in Outlook performance and if your users can somehow learn to control the items in their folders, the performance will be fine. From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:shay.m...@absg.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance Hey, Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and �� years ago which turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. We have
