I've not tested it personally, but the goal I heard was to support 20 GB mailboxes on "fully utilized" 1.5 TB (and larger) SATA disk where all the content of the mailbox is in the Inbox, Sent Items, and Deleted Items folders.
It seems somewhat miraculous, but only in comparison to what we've had before... ________________________________________ From: Kurt Buff [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 8:49 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Re: Exchange archiving On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 17:22, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Not intending to delve into the vagaries of the ESE implementation; however, > it is > worthwhile to note that Exchange 2007 changed database internals to flatten > the > database and increase table performance; Exchange 2010 has made a large > number of > changes that continue to flatten the database structure and improve table > performance. > As such, in 2010, the number of items in a folder that provide good > performance has > increased by a couple orders of magnitude. Also, there used to be > message-store level > tables that contained all attachments and message bodies; these have been > moved to > be per-mailbox tables and that also allows for significantly improved > per-mailbox > performance (and subsequently larger mailboxes). >From 2-5k items in a folder before slowdown to 200-500k before slowdown? That's quite impressive! ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
