Sorry - replication was staying static, had already added the replication back
in for the two Public Folders that have not got cleaned up by the
MoveAllReplicas script. Example:
'07 server 100 items
'10 server 110 items
Add an item to the 2010 PF and item count increases by 1 on
Why do you want to get the data off the Exchange server? Exchange now has
fairly minimal requirements for i/o so you no longer need high performance
storage. Since SP1 whilst the archives MUST be on AN Exchange server it does
not need to be the same server that the primary database is on. Even
Our biggest issue with Sunbelt is that they were totally wrong in the estimate
of how much storage was required. What was supposed to handle 5 years filled
in just over a year.
-Paul
-Original Message-
From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 4:57 PM
I have to ask, how was this estimate arrived at?
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families
- Original Message -
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 09:10 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Data expands to fill the storage available
-Original Message-
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:11 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Archiving (again)
Our biggest issue with Sunbelt is that they were totally wrong in the
I can't complain about their service.
I have been archiving since April 2009 and total archived messages = 11.65
Million messages taking about 520Gb of data this is for about 250 users.
Stefan
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 9:23 AM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote:
I have to ask, how was this
No matter how big you build it, they will fill it.
-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:56 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Archiving (again)
Data expands to fill the storage available
-Original
More typically, even after de-duplication and compression, Data expands to fill
110% of the storage available.
Could this be because manufacturers size disks in normal GigaBytes (1000**3)
but servers measure free storage as binary (1024**3) Gbytes?
Dave Wade
0161 474 5456
-Original
I don't remember all details, but basically average number of emails/day and
length of time we wanted to keep them.
-Original Message-
From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:24 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Archiving (again)
I have
Yep, I call it the fish tank principle around here.
-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 8:28 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Archiving (again)
Data expands to fill the storage available
-Original
Hi Dave,
I'd like to get it off the Exchange server so that I can free up resources and
essentially keep my email server fast while people are searching archives.
Again, since speed is my concern far more so than storage, I'm figuring
throwing twice the hardware at a problem will help :)
My current issue is that although the install was supposed to be done by a
level 2 tech this morning, it was postponed because he forgot to mention last
night that the Exchange 2010 server needed to be at SP2 rollup 1, which mine is
not.
My bigger issue is a concern about something else he
Well your users attachment habits play a huge part in it.
John W. Cook
Systems Administrator
Partnership for Strong Families
- Original Message -
From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:07 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
With Exchange archive mailboxes aren't they accessed online so the clients
being always connected put an extra resource strain on the exchange server.
Isn't cache mode one of the ways Microsoft got the server requirements so low
on 2010?
If I setup everyone with an archive mailbox won't I be
My bigger issue is a concern about something else he told me - that he has
seen many times where
updating to SP2 rollup 1 completely bombs the server and it has to be
restored from backups.
Yeah, sure... And MS has not seen it, but he has? Don't you think it would be
pulled if it were
Malarkey. Tell him he's fully of it. And that I said so. :-)
But yes, I have a process/procedure of the proper way to prepare for installing
service packs and update rollups to minimize ANY risk:
Well, since I have very few users, everyone is online anyway. Not an issue for
me... yet :)
Thanks,
Evan
-Original Message-
From: Jason Benway [mailto:benw...@jsjcorp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:15 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Archiving (again)
With
Hmm... didn't think I was beating a dead horse... that's the first time I asked
that question :)
I was only asking the list to see if people had had any experience that was
similar to this tech's. Thought it might be a prudent thing to do when someone
tells you something that could be quite
Thanks Michael... exactly what I needed!
Evan
-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 11:38 AM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Archiving (again)
Malarkey. Tell him he's fully of it. And that I said so. :-)
But
+1
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Evan Brastow ebras...@automatedemblem.com
wrote:
Hmm... didn't think I was beating a dead horse... that's the first time I
asked that question :)
I was only asking the list to see if people had had any experience that
was similar to this tech's. Thought
Cache mode has an impact, yes, but far less than the impact associated with
RPC/HTTP vs. online mode.
The primary reason for the reduction in I/O load is due to caching (i.e.,
loading indices into memory) and schema redesigns (i.e., changing the way the
Exchange database is laid out on disk).
Michael - I'll let you know how this process works at our next maintenance
interval. I would have done it and UR1 already but can't find anyone that has
put UR1 on a Cisco Unity 8.0 environment.
-Paul
-Original Message-
From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com]
Sent:
The only issue I have seen with Exchange 2010 Sp2 that means a server needs
to be rebuilt is from people not reading the release notes and failing to
check/change the policy on PowerShell execution policy.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh529928.aspx
It is in the release notes - so
Hmm... didn't think I was beating a dead horse... that's the first time I
asked that question :)
I was only asking the list to see if people had had any experience that was
similar to this tech's.
Thought it might be a prudent thing to do when someone tells you something
that could be quite
Didn't know there was a difference between RPC/HTTP vs. online mode
I thought it was cache vs non-cache for performance.huh
So using Exchanges built in archive mailboxes won't 2x the server CPU/Memory
requirements if the clients are outlook 2010 using rpc/http ?
Thank you
jb
Okay, I'm coming up empty on this one, so I'd love to a) hear that I'm doing it
wrong; b) know how other people are handling this, or c) get a clue-by-four to
the right side of my sleep-deprived head.
We're at Exchange 2010 SP1 RU6 with Forefront for Exchange 2010. We have edge
transports
Holy smokes. That is one hateful gotcha right there.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Simon Butler si...@sembee.co.uk wrote:
The only issue I have seen with Exchange 2010 Sp2 that means a server
needs to be rebuilt is from people not reading the release notes and
failing to check/change the
Hi Joseph,
No problem at all, my friend. I wasn't offended... merely bewildered... lol
Thanks,
Evan
-Original Message-
From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:jcas...@activenetwerx.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:10 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Archiving (again)
Hmm...
I think Paul Cunningham, of ExchangeServerPro.com installed it and got it
running without much issues.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Jason Gurtz [mailto:jasongu...@npumail.com]
Sent: 14 March 2012 20:12
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Anyone try Exchange on Win8 Server yet?
It is not supported, by the way. I find it necessary to point that out.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Goodman [mailto:st...@stevieg.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:04 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Anyone try Exchange on Win8 Server yet?
I think Paul Cunningham, of
Actually, it ain’t that big a deal. A PITA, but not that bad. I’ve been called
in to fix it a couple of times.
From: Richard Stovall [mailto:rich...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:56 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: Re: Archiving (again)
Holy smokes. That is one hateful
Nope.
-Original Message-
From: Jason Benway [mailto:benw...@jsjcorp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:06 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Archiving (again)
Didn't know there was a difference between RPC/HTTP vs. online mode
I thought it was cache vs non-cache for
I guess it's a matter of degrees, but if I ran the install, it didn't work,
and I subsequently couldn't use Exchange at all without doing a
restore/recover, I'd freak out a little bit.
(Note to self. Revisit Exchange backup and availability strategy...)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Michael
It only gets challenging when local IT people have TRIED to fix it by doing a
system restore and/or a DB recovery – then it becomes a bigger deal….
I try to let my clients know that if something breaks and they don’t know
EXACTLY what to do – call me and ask. I won’t charge anything just for
34 matches
Mail list logo
