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:
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 It
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,
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
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 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: Larg
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
>>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
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
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
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
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 was hoping it would a quick look. = ]
~Kevinm WLKMMAS
My life http://www.hedonists.ca<http://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 an
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 Ro
inm 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
: 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
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Mayo, Shay 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
bottleneck
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
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM, mqcarp 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
(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 wrote:
> Is it safe to sa
That's the one I was talking about that uped the numbers..
~Kevinm WLKMMAS
My life http://www.hedonists.ca<http://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
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
om: KevinM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
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,
evinM [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]
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
T
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&#
k,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
-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 rec
to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud
- Original Message -
From: James Wells
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
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
US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Large Mailboxes Performance
On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM, mqcarp 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 t
s 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 th
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 n
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 ~
~
> -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 calculat
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 wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: mqcarp [mailto:mqcarpen...@gmail.com]
>> Subject: Re: Large Ma
.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 (the
36 matches
Mail list logo
