Sorry, it isn't that simple. Unfortunately.
It depends on your trust and investment in the new Exchange 2010 features.
So...if you go whole hog Exchange 2010, a HA solution looks like this:
DAG with 2 copies real-time and a copy lagged by 7-14 days
In THAT case (at least two DAG copies and a lagged copy in case of logical DB
corruption) MSFT says that the total DB size of a mailbox database can go up to
2 TB (maximum recommended size).
Otherwise, Exchange 2007 limits apply:
1] 200 GB with 2 copies in the DAG and regular VSS backups
2] 100 GB with 1 copy of the mailbox database and regular VSS backups
Streaming backups are completely gone.
________________________________________
From: Matthew W. Ross [[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 5:38 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: Outlook 2007, constant hard disk thrashing.
That's a recommended Maximum of 2TB per user, or overall?
Just curious.
--Matt Ross
Ephrata School District
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael B. Smith
[mailto:[email protected]]
To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wed, 21 Oct 2009
14:30:48 -0700
Subject: RE: Outlook 2007, constant hard disk thrashing.
> To ASB's point.... PST != OST.
>
> A PST is purely a Outlook object.
>
> A OST is both an Outlook and an Exchange object. (Although, I can assure
> you, Exchange wishes for a different format - but that's neither here nor
> there.)
>
> Today, I consider 5 GB trivial. If you want to talk to me about a 5 TB
> database, then I might consider putting it on a dedicated partition.
>
> FYI: For Exchange 2010, Microsoft recommends a maximum mailbox database of 2
> TB; but supports mailbox databases up to 64 TB.
>
> [[ Yes, you read that right - 64 TB. ]]
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Ben Scott [[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 5:03 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: Outlook 2007, constant hard disk thrashing.
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This has nothing to do with Exchange, at least as it pertains to PSTs.
>
> Well, since Outlook is the native Exchange client, and since Outlook
> 2003 and later prefer to have an OST going all the time ("Cached
> Mode"), it does have *something* to do with Exchange. ;-)
>
> It perhaps also has something to do with NTFS's rather poor handling
> of fragmentation, but to be honest, if I've got a 5 GB database file,
> I'd prolly want that on its own partition no matter what OS or
> filesystem I was using.
>
> -- Ben
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
>
>
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
