We used to do that years ago with earlier versions of OL and when most folks
were on dial up. That kind of stuff could make a big difference.
Now I haven't touched it in ages.
-Original Message-
From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 3:04 PM
To: MS-Exch
This is Exchange 2003SP2, Outlook 2003.
No clue here...there were a few complaints after a new VPN rollout,
and customers CLAIMED they saw improvement after moving ip ahead of
rpc in that registry key. Personally, I don't really think it makes
a difference. But most folks think it's easier than
Factual errors are corrected pretty quickly. But stuff like this is a long
time changing.
Regards,
Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange
From: Tim Vander
Ahh ok, then that makes more sense
- Original Message -
From: Michael B. Smith
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 1:54 PM
Subject: RE: Quick Question
Not..the "allocation" comments are for memory on the mailbox server. Sorry.
Regards,
Apparently Microsoft's bureaucracy gives them the ability to update guidance
just about as fast as, oh say, Congress?
:)
TVK
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:55 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Quick Question
I agree with you, but the
I agree with you, but these are the numbers still current in the Microsoft
performance guides.
As of last week, anyway. J
Regards,
Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theess
Not..the "allocation" comments are for memory on the mailbox server. Sorry.
Regards,
Michael B. Smith, MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP
My blog: http://TheEssentialExchange.com/blogs/michael
Link with me at: http://www.linkedin.com/in/theessentialexchange
From: James Kerr [mailto:[EMAIL
What is your Exchange version? (that applies to section looks mighty old).
We have 100s of folks on VPN and Outlook Anywhere with no issues, but we are
Exchange 2007 sp1
-troy
-Original Message-
From: James Wells [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:41 AM
To: MS-E
Has anyone ever had a valid reason to change Outlook's RPC binding
order? (KB 163576). We had some complaints about Outlook performance
over VPN, and a consultant recommended that setting as a fix...the
customers claim to have seen improvement, but I had never even heard
of this setting, client-si
Wow. Those numbers seem to be circa 2000. We have a bunch of users here who
swear that email is the debil and refuse to give up their fax machines, and
they still are tripling those numbers (or more). I would think in today's world
that everyone is a heavy user by the standards given.
TVK
From:
Those are very small mailboxes. That wouldn't work here. 25MB minimum for light
users. Staff love to keep email around here and really cant handle managing
their mailboxes and removing attachments from emails they may want to keep.
Mailboxes get full all the time, its very annoying.
- Orig
I use the Microsoft definitions:
For light users (which are defined as 5 sent messages/20 received messages
per day), allocate 2.0 MB per mailbox. For average users (defined as 10 sent
messages/40 received messages per day) allocate 3.5 MB per mailbox. For
heavy users (defined as anything over
Can you define heavy use?
On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 11:03 PM, Michael B. Smith <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Obligatory Warning: This post uses basic math!
>
> It also serves to show why, while the OP thought this was a quick question,
> it really is not. Even with small servers and small numbers o
13 matches
Mail list logo
