Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive.
Am I being to strict???
I also have deleted item retention set for 14 days.
I figured these are pretty typical limits?
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05,
Ex2003 here.
We have an employee that left and an existing employee has been assigned
to the job the ex employee had.
The replacement needs all the emails that were in the account of the ex
employee.
Can or should I exmerge the ex employee mail to a PST and then re-import
this PST into the
Hi Glen
When you run exmerge - either in import or expert mode - you will be given the
option to merge, copy, replace or archive the items. Explanations of each
option are given within the program. We use exmerge a fair bit to perform the
actions you describe below. Personally, I use merge the
Yes you can do that, but be careful on your option selections (read them
carefully) and be sure to only select the mailbox that you intend. You may
want to run the two step option; not deleting the contents.
From: Glen Johnson [mailto:gjohn...@vhcc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:57 AM
Limits here are 2Gb, lots of large proposals with large pdf attachments that
people need to keep for 100 years (joke).
___
Stefan Jafs
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:27 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin
Least it's not forever
/snicker
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:20 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Limits here are 2Gb, lots of large proposals with large pdf attachments that
people need to keep for 100 years (joke).
True :) but way past my lifetime!
___
Stefan Jafs
From: Louis, Joe [mailto:jlo...@guardianalarm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Least it's not forever
/snicker
From: Stefan Jafs
Nope, not in my opinion...
60MB warn
70MB no send
80MB no receive
except if your an exec, then
200MB limitation
The Exchange server is NOT a file server...
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:27 AM
To:
How many users what industry?
For many users Outlook is the application they use 90% of the time as long as
you have the storage and capacity why severely limit the usage?
Outlook is a very nice application to keep track of your daily, past and future
activities.
My highest user is at about 1 GB
400 users, retail.
Outlook is a very nice application to keep track of your daily, past
and future activities.
Yep, but Exchange is an email server.
If you want to move MB files around, that's what FTP servers are for.
If you want to keep MB files around, that's what file servers are for.
WOW.
What size is/are the store(s)?
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:42 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
400 users, retail.
Outlook is a very nice application to keep track
Stefan,
Do you find with these high limits that users get outlook is trying to
retrieve data from the microsoft exchange server message?
As I've increased our limits, I see this more and more (cached and non
cached clients, local, citrix, doesn't matter)
From:
About 38GB.
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:53 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
WOW.
What size is/are the store(s)?
From:
There was an article brought up here not too long ago referencing that
it's not the size of the messages, but rather the number of messages
that can affect Exchange performance. ... Can't lay my hands on it
right at the moment...
From: David Mazzaccaro
Aha! Here it is...
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:01 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
There was an article brought
No but then again my infrastructure is pretty good, I'm also all virtual and
E2K7 and Outlook 2007!
And I think most users are running in cached mode.
___
Stefan Jafs
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Yes most of my users are using many subfolders so the 5,000 limit is not a
problem,
___
Stefan Jafs
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:04 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Aha! Here
Thanks!
From the article:
For rarely used operations, such as creating a new sort order or
selecting a folder for the first time, response times of up to one
minute are acceptable.
Ugh...yeah.. right..
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent:
So I have a request from my management to start tracking total Messages handled
by Exchange on a monthly basis. I know there are software packages like Quest
MessageStats that will easily produce this for me, however we have $0 in the
budget for this.
Wondering if anyone has had to produce
As long as they are not using 5000 subfolders.
From: Stefan Jafs [mailto:sj...@amico.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:26 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Yes most of my users are using many subfolders so the 5,000 limit is not a
problem,
I run a PS script that does this.
It runs as a scheduled task in the early am, pulls the message tracking logs
for the previous day, and reads through the log entries and accumulates the
message counts into a csv. At the end of the month, it pulls all the daily
csv's back in and creates a
cool
From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:13 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Total messages handled by Exchange
I run a PS script that does this.
It runs as a scheduled task in the early am, pulls the message
www.promodag.comhttp://www.promodag.com
30 days free.
___
Stefan Jafs
From: Barsodi.John [mailto:john.bars...@igt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Total messages handled by Exchange
So I have a request from my
Some are getting close, no seriously many have 100 + subfolders.
___
Stefan Jafs
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:10 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
As long as they are not
We tell 'em - save the attachment, delete the email - email is not a
file transfer system nor a file storage system.
From: Louis, Joe [mailto:jlo...@guardianalarm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 6:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange
Interesting... are you running this on each Hub Transport server? I have HT
servers all over the world, so I'd have to run this locally and then copy to a
central location then do more data massaging. How are you handling the
totaling? Are you doing this manually or by script? How many HT
We're at 75, 85 100mb - exceptions on case by case basis - 10mb max
msg size - we have an in-house browser based secure file transfer system
for larger files.
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:40 AM
To:
I'll echo that - we're about 60K+ users - retail also.
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 7:42 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
400 users, retail.
Outlook is a very nice
Atta boy Don!
From: Don Andrews [mailto:don.andr...@safeway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
We tell 'em - save the attachment, delete the email - email is not a
file transfer system nor
I've only got 3 HT servers, all within one state, and well connected. I'm
running it on one server and having it pull the logs from the other servers.
Running it locally on each one should be easily do-able. You'll just have to
add some code at the end to copy out the resulting file to a
Sorry, that last line in the script should have been
$totalmsgs += $stats.msgcount
From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Total messages handled by Exchange
Here, it is both a file transfer system and a storage system accessed
through a PIM portal (Outlook in most cases).
From: Don Andrews [mailto:don.andr...@safeway.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
We tell 'em - save
I've got users that do that. I ask them if they have a file cabinet mounted on
a post at the end of their driveway.
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 12:21 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:27 AM, David Mazzaccaro
david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com wrote:
Mailbox limits are 300MB warning, 320MB no send, 350MB no send/receive.
Am I being to strict???
Does it meet your business requirements? If it does, then you're
not being too strict. It's all about
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:57 AM, Glen Johnson gjohn...@vhcc.edu wrote:
We have an employee that left and an existing employee has been assigned to
the job the ex employee had.
The replacement needs all the emails that were in the account of the ex
employee.
When this happens, what I
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 10:32, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote:
We've found that creating a separate hard disk partition and putting
the OST (and just the OST) on that partition helps a lot. I suspect
part of that is filesystem fragmentation. The Windows defrag utility
can't cope with
I have no idea why that question would be relevant. I am really just playing
devil's advocate and I don't have the big company issues that Don has at
safeway.
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system? Especially
if that is what the market wants. This isn't Sendmail
Because it's a database app with performance limits as opposed to a file server.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud
From: will...@lefkovics.net
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Sent: Wed May
IMHO, using a mailbox for data storage is bad practice because data files are
departmental, and belong on a file server in a departmental data directory
that's permanent and is designed for data storage.
Mailboxes are personal, and are usually deleted when the user leaves.
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
The transfer problem may never be solved--at least until SMTP v2 comes
out--but I bet if Exchange had a feature like SQL 2008's FILESTREAM then
storage would no longer be an issue. Or maybe yEnc MIME extension will
gain traction
In some companies mailboxes are not personal - that data is the property
of the company and may be preserved for as long as deemed necessary.
From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 2:20 PM
To: MS-Exchange
Indeed... it is far better than a lowly file server.
From: John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 11:45 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues exchangelist@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
Because it's a database
Indeed, we shouldn't limit storage to one's mailbox.
Exchange 2010 brings a sort of tiered mailbox to the picture with
rudimentary archiving. It's like storing your archive.pst on the Exchange
Server.
From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May
Defraged your DB lately??
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership For Strong Families
Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud
From: will...@lefkovics.net
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Sent: Wed May 06 14:51:02 2009
Subject: Re: Exchange archiving
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
A Bugatti isn't a semi-truck either.
From: will...@lefkovics.net [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:03 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange
Heh... not here. Exported to PST, burned to CD and stashed away
somewhere...
From: Campbell, Rob [mailto:rob_campb...@centraltechnology.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:20 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
IMHO, using a
So you're trading a filing cabinet for a trash compactor...
From: William Lefkovics [mailto:will...@lefkovics.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:56 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
Indeed, we shouldn't limit storage to one's
Here they are personal (as opposed to functional) but for business use,
not personal use - if that makes sense - and the data, mailbox,
workstation and software are company property.
From: Moss, Susan K [mailto:sm...@cas.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009
That makes sense.
We're a big enough company that we have people moving around from one
department to another, but keeping the same mailbox.
We had at least one case where someone went from HR to another department and
kept their mailbox.
Long story short - new supervisor requested and got
Exchange 2003 (moving to 2007 soon) 14,000 users, 3 mailbox servers, 15
DB's, approx 2 TB data, growing at rate of 100 GB month. 75% of users
OWA, 25% Outlook 2003 in cached mode. No Quotas,or retention periods
enforced, no archiving.
Sounds like a horror story but very few performance
I think I understand William's point...
Exchange, especially 2007 and later, is more than capable of handling larges
amounts of data. If a company chooses to use Exchange/Outlook as their
primary method of sending/storing data, then it's not impossible to design
Exchange for that purpose.
I think that everyone recognizes that exchange may be able to handle it, but
that's not the right tool for the job. The difference is considerably more than
using a screwdriver as a chisel or a prybar. Especially when you take into
accout the rest of the exchange infrastructure, user
We also have limits but we don't restrict the receive. that would be
considered counter productive. It gets there attention when they cant
send.
Mark
WTP project
Richland Wa
_
From: David Mazzaccaro [mailto:david.mazzacc...@hudsonhhc.com]
Posted At: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 5:27
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 2:11 PM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote:
But why isn't an e-mail system a file transfer and storage system?
Because it's a database app with performance limits as opposed to a file
server.
[This message is somewhat vague theory, somewhat devil's advocate,
and
Not intending to delve into the vagaries of the ESE implementation; however, it
is worthwhile to note that Exchange 2007 changed database internals to flatten
the database and increase table performance; Exchange 2010 has made a large
number of changes that continue to flatten the database
But, a Lamborghini is a truck. See
http://www.lamborghiniregistry.com/LM002/index.html and
http://www.lamborghiniregistry.com/LM002/LM002Registry.html
For a photo of one in the wild, see
http://filebox.vt.edu/users/ajilling/SBAUB05/Pics.htm, fourth picture down.
\\Steve//
From:
That registry is well out of date..:)
From: Steve Szabo [mailto:steve...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:45 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Exchange archiving
But, a Lamborghini is a truck. See
http://www.lamborghiniregistry.com/LM002/index.html and
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 17:22, Michael B. Smith
mich...@owa.smithcons.com wrote:
Not intending to delve into the vagaries of the ESE implementation; however,
it is
worthwhile to note that Exchange 2007 changed database internals to flatten
the
database and increase table performance;
I've not tested it personally, but the goal I heard was to support 20 GB
mailboxes on fully utilized 1.5 TB (and larger) SATA disk where all the
content of the mailbox is in the Inbox, Sent Items, and Deleted Items folders.
It seems somewhat miraculous, but only in comparison to what we've had
59 matches
Mail list logo
