Haven't caused any problems with us after 4 years of stubbed archiving. Now getting them to file the 80,000 messages that's a problem........ John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families Sent to you from my Blackberry in the Cloud
----- Original Message ----- From: KevinM <[email protected]> To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] 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 this thread uses a 3rd party archive option at all based on this feedback? On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM, William Lefkovics <[email protected]> wrote: > I wonder if those very rough guidelines are impacted at all by the > performance improvements in the Outlook 2007 cumulative update from February > 2009. > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=968009 (This will be in Office 2007 SP2 > also) > > > > > > > > From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[email protected]] > 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? J I remember Ross Smith talking about > this at TechEd EMEA and using the 20k figure. > > > > I wasn't 100% correct. Turns out that it's the Inbox and Sent Items at 20k, > but the Contacts and Calendar are still at 5k. Having said this, keeping > everything below 5k is always going to be better. > > > > http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc535025.aspx > > > > From: KevinM [mailto:[email protected]] > 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 hard to get a > firm answer on Items per folder. The last great written thing by Nicole I > think was no more than 1,000 items per folder. I know it has changed since > then. Last I had heard was 10k with the latest stuff. Has Matt or Nicole > posting something different to the Exchange blog recently? > > > > ~Kevinm WLKMMAS > > My life http://www.hedonists.ca > > > > From: Neil Hobson [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 7:36 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > It's all about the number of items in the core folders, like Inbox, Sent > Items, Calendar, etc, and also restricted views. In Exchange 2003, the > recommendation was to keep the number of items in these folders < 5,000. In > Exchange 2007, the recommendation is not to exceed 20,000 items (as long as > you've designed your infrastructure correctly) > > > > From: Mayo, Shay [mailto:[email protected]] > 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 items in their folders"? > > Thanks > Shay > > > > From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 8:55 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > I don't 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:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 6:38 AM > To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues > Subject: Large Mailboxes Performance > > > > Hey, > > > > Just curious what type of performance people have had with large mailboxes > on Exchange 2007. Our company has a strict email retention policy that > purges email after 30 days, but we have about 200 people though that have > special circumstances where they need to store email long term. We > implemented an archiving product from C2C about 1 and��� years ago which > turned out to be a far less than desirable solution for our users. > > > > We have fully migrated to Exchange 2007 and are kicking around the idea of > not having a 3rd party archiving system and just allowing larger mailboxes > (3-10 GB) for these special users. So my question is, what kind of > performance have you guys seen with mailboxes this large? Do they benefit > from Office 2k7 or have they actually ran fine with Office2k3? Lastly, a lot > of these users travel and will be using cached Exchange mode. So I am mainly > worried about performance from large OSTs.... > > > > Thanks > > > > Shay Mayo // Systems Administrator > > AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group > > Ph. 469-365-7160 // [email protected] > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain > privileged and/or confidential > > information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is > addressed. If you have > > received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the > sender, delete it and destroy > > it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the > waiver of the attorney-client > > or any other privilege. > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE. This electronic mail transmission may contain > privileged and/or confidential > > information and is intended only for the review of the party to whom it is > addressed. If you have > > received this transmission in error, please immediately return it to the > sender, delete it and destroy > > it without reading it. Unintended transmission shall not constitute the > waiver of the attorney-client > > or any other privilege. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~ CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
