AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I make no claims to omniscience. I'm regularly proven wrong! J
My point, which I stated poorly, is that certain usage patterns cannot be (cost-effectively) made performant. That really doesn't depend on whether we are talking about an ASP or about one-server-SBS-company or two-hundred-server-worldwide-company. While an empty mailbox may be fast-as-the-dickens, it's immaterial. What's more important is a mailbox that a user is having issues with and determining WHY that is the case. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 4:05 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Just HOW BIG are your Exchange mailboxes, white screens, and Directory access times Not that I would *ever* challenge your exchange knowledge Michael but: "an empty mailbox doesn't tell you squat" followed by: "no ASP is going to provision their hardware to such a level as to make that performance reasonably" So apparently it has all to do with performance J My reco was an effort to simply show that the ASP's claims to the Op's perf issues were accurate or not. jlc From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 2:00 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Just HOW BIG are your Exchange mailboxes, white screens, and Directory access times Usage patterns and software versions are much more important. No offense, but an empty mailbox doesn't tell you squat (except whether you can connect or not). For example, if a user keeps 20,000 items in their inbox or sent items, no ASP is going to provision their hardware to such a level as to make that performance reasonably. I'd rather lose the occasional customer than spend the dollars that would require. When I left my last job last year, as an Exchange hoster, my personal mailbox (and I hosted our email domain just like any other customer) was over 8 GB and performance was stellar. However, there are a few key rules that come into play. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCITP:SA,EMA/MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Joseph L. Casale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:45 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Just HOW BIG are your Exchange mailboxes, white screens, and Directory access times So provision a new empty one and test. Should put an end to that mystery. Is it fast, or does he need to look elsewhere? jlc From: John Gwinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 1:40 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Just HOW BIG are your Exchange mailboxes, white screens, and Directory access times We are getting hassled by our Exchange ASP. I won't mention any names. About a year and a half ago we outsourced our existing exchange server. Performance with our ASP has gone downhill steadily ever since. We are a consulting company, without any central location but an admin office with 10 people in it. Email is our lifeline to other 200 people in the company. Most of our clients don't support outgoing VPN's so we tend to use email attachments a lot. (WebDAV helps out some for intranet work, but we still do most work on email). So our mailboxes are big. The owners is about 5 Gig, mine is about 3Gig and I've cut back the NT mailing list to 1 year J The Microsoft Exchange Connection Status currently shows a 138ms average response on Mail, and roughly 2500ms on Directory Service. I think the Director service is horrid, but our ASP is blaming the white screens and poor response time on the size of our mailboxes. Ideas? So . how big is yours? == John == ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
