Wrong, Wrong, Wrong,
You are absolutely right that IT is presented with the two cases. That's the way business should work. (Of course many big enterprises forget this). But it's basic supply and demand. Users need storage, they need to pay for it. Users need IT support, the management pays for it. Users need more storage, management pays for it. This is such an easy problem, and it's amazing so many people miss the answer. Present the case to management, let them decide. Although better stated, when the email system is designed, it should have been reviewed and the support levels negotiated with management. Now I realize this is a little too complicated for a small organization, but the same concept should be followed, let management, the guys with the purse strings make the decision. It's your job to present to them the different scenarios and situations, in a language and format that they can understand. And as to disk drives, I can speak pretty knowledgeably in this situation, there is virtually no storage limitations within Exchange that impacts the per user storage. The closest I can think of would be a 16GB limit in standard edition for a mailbox. Or maybe a 100GB in Enterprise edition realistic limitation restricted by backup limits. But in either of these cases, sections of the Public Folders can be set aside for the user's private use to get around the limitation. A TB Exchange System is a daily type of thing. And as to users keeping things forever, that's pretty much hogwash. I've dealt with thousands of users and that's just not what happens. On a mature system, you can expect growth in the neighborhood of 10%. And at that rate, technology far outpaces it. Technology doubles every 18 months or so, that's about 70% growth rate. I've only seen average mailbox sizes increase from about 10MB in the pre-Internet days to about 50MB today. Sure you have a couple of users with multi-GB mailboxes, but you've got 10 times as many with sub MB mailboxes. That's the way people are. 10% of your users will use 90% of your storage and 90% of your users will use 10% of your storage. While not exact, it always comes pretty darn close. Look at your mailboxes and see how close the saying is. You'll see the same thing in your file systems. As well as paper storage. I can pretty well guarantee you that with a user base of 1000 users, that you will not be able to average 1GB per user. That means that even something as small as a TB requires well over 1,000 users. Actually, you can probably count on it servicing about 10k-20k users and would be over-sized at about 3k-5k users -----Original Message----- From: John Steniger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, July 05, 2002 3:17 PM Posted To: Microsoft Exchange Conversation: Unlimited Quotas Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas Not to get into a war of words (as this appears to be something near and dear to your heart), often IT is put in the position to have to: A) Save money by not spending any, period (on Exchange or any other type of upgrades, or disk, or what have you..) B) Provide virtually unlimited service (unlimited file share, unlimited email storage, etc....) These two opposing conditions are imposed on us by those far more important than myself in an organization. In an organization, the fact that it is sometimes impossible to meet these two criteria at the same time if often lost on those who make these decisions. It happened in our organization, and it was decided that limits should be imposed. Did we run out of space directly because we had no limits to begin with? I happen to believe no limits encourages lazy usage (storing everything, to the point where you can't remember if you need it, so you keep it) - I certainly may be mistaken. It seems clear to me that if reasonable limits are imposed, and adjusted as needs change, one can get much more use out of a system. To speak to another of your points, sometimes "more disk drives" don't do the trick. Exchange (not Enterprise) imposes a software limit on the information store. Disk won't help if you hit that. I agree with you that you won't necessarily run out of space if you restrict storage. However, I would say its rather likely, from my experience. It may not happen within a week, or even a year, but users aren't typically concerned with keeping their file and email storage neat and clean so to not fill up the server - they have their own jobs to worry about. Maybe the users in your organization are different. John J. Steniger > -----Original Message----- > From: Woodrick, Ed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 2:32 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Unlimited Quotas > > > > Why do you pretend to be arrogant enough to be able to > dictate the needs > of others? You don't seem to have any business drivers to justify your > actions. And who is to say that getting additional disk drives for the > user email storage isn't out of the question? > > And as to storage, it has nothing to do with processor and RAM. > > And most importantly, just because you don't restrict the > users storage, > doesn't mean that you will run out of space. That's > absolutely hogwash, > a justification of why many IT shops get such a bad > reputation. Your job > is to SUPPORT your users, not be a dictator. In the whole scheme of > things, a few thousand dollars for some disk space and maybe > an upgrade > in Exchange editions is petty cash. > > > The BUSINESS driver should not be an IT limit. Exchange really is able > to support most business drivers with little difficulty. In the > limitation of storage, that should be completely dictated by you > organizations Document Retention Policy, which should be dictated by > the lawyers. And it shouldn't even be an IT function to enforce, > even if you > can. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Liddil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Friday, July 05, 2002 9:18 AM > Posted To: Microsoft Exchange > Conversation: Unlimited Quotas > Subject: Unlimited Quotas > > > I am being asked to justify why I have set quotas for users on our E2K > server with 25 users. Things that come to mind are that if we give > users unlimited stores, we will have to buy more disk space in time. > Also we have a single processor server with 512 ram. So I would make > a WAG and say that we will be looking at a second processor and > more RAM. > I am already looking at more RAM since our server is paging > quite a bit. > And as we implement archiving and journaling this will impact > disk space > as well as the backup (time, number of tapes). I also realize that > allowing unlimited space leads to users never managing their e-mail. > > So besides these reasons are there any other reasons that I should be > thinking about? Thanks. > > Jim Liddil > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
