I've successfully used the 'paged view functionality' on the later versions of Connections that works around this issue by staying under the EWS default limits.
http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/10x/unified_messaging/guide/10xcucumgx/10xcucumg020.html#83993 On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Pagan <[email protected]> wrote: > Folks: > > > > I’m hoping someone can share their experience with the Cisco recommended > method for removing EWS limits on Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and higher. In > earlier releases of Ex2010 the process of setting a throttling policy > applied only to the UM service account, and any throttling performed would > be applied to that service account and not to the target mailbox. Please > correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but with E2010 SP2 RU4 and > higher, the policy is to be applied to every target mailbox, which seems > like it would impact all other EWS applications impersonating these target > mailboxes. > > *Removing EWS Limits from Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and Later* > > Microsoft has enabled the client throttling policy feature by default. If > there is no throttling policy already configured, Microsoft Exchange > applies a default policy to all users. The default throttling policy is > tailored for end user's load and not for an enterprise application like, > Cisco Unity Connection using impersonation. If any Cisco Unity Connection > users who are configured for unified messaging have mailboxes in Exchange > 2010, configure the Exchange 2010 EWS limits for the unified messaging > users mailbox by creating and applying a new mailbox policy to the unified > messaging user mailbox account. If you do not configure EWS limits, > messages may not be synchronized, and status changes (for example, from > unread to read), changes to the subject line, and changes to the priority > may not be replicated. In addition, attempts to access Exchange calendars > and contacts may fail. > > > > *The MS KB referring to the throttling policy change*: > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2713371 > > > > Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but it seems like a backwards move. Has > anyone seen any adverse effects of applying the Cisco recommended > throttling values as the system default? Perhaps any problems where > applying the throttling policy to the target mailbox impacts other EWS apps > like BlackBerry Enterprise? Are you applying the throttling policy for > every single UM enabled mailbox, individually, via management shell? > > > > Thanks! > > > > - Dan > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > >
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
