RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency
This doesn't seem to be right at all. Event 1221 reported 107 meg but the actual amount recovered was about 2.5 gig. -Original Message- From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 July 2003 14:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency To get a good estimate, look at your Event logs after Nightly online maintenance has run. You should see an event number 1221 for each of your Stores indicating how much free space is in the database after online defragmentation has completed. This figure is your White Space, and is a general indication of how much space you might be able to regain with an offline defrag (eseutil). The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency
I believe that the online defrag only reports free space, not partially used space. There is a setting on the server to Zero out Deleted Database Pages. This would likely help the Online defrag to report a better representation of the number. Be aware though that turning that on will have a performance hit on your server, as it will be working harder. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:07 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: eseutil defrag inconsistency Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency This doesn't seem to be right at all. Event 1221 reported 107 meg but the actual amount recovered was about 2.5 gig. -Original Message- From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 July 2003 14:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency To get a good estimate, look at your Event logs after Nightly online maintenance has run. You should see an event number 1221 for each of your Stores indicating how much free space is in the database after online defragmentation has completed. This figure is your White Space, and is a general indication of how much space you might be able to regain with an offline defrag (eseutil). The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency
Minor change - the setting for Zero Out Deleted Database Pages is found on the properties of the Storage Group, not the server. Sorry. Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 10:07 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: eseutil defrag inconsistency Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency This doesn't seem to be right at all. Event 1221 reported 107 meg but the actual amount recovered was about 2.5 gig. -Original Message- From: Ben Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 July 2003 14:34 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency To get a good estimate, look at your Event logs after Nightly online maintenance has run. You should see an event number 1221 for each of your Stores indicating how much free space is in the database after online defragmentation has completed. This figure is your White Space, and is a general indication of how much space you might be able to regain with an offline defrag (eseutil). The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency
You are, of course, correct that I should not expect identical results and it's perhaps harsh of me to 'accuse' the tool of inconsistency if I'm moving the goalposts. So let me rephrase things. What I'm trying to achieve is a good estimate of how much use the procedure would be if I were to run it on Saturday. Obviously I haven't got Saturday's database to try it on so I won't be able to run a test that will show me this precisely. However running tests on databases a few days apart would, I thought, give me an idea on whether there would be a broadly similar reduction in database size or whether there would be a diminishing return over time. I was surprised to find that on databases from only a few days apart the amount of regained space was reduced by 85%. Can anyone a) Tell me what sort of returns I might expect given their experiences with the tool (and bearing in mind a number of accounts have been removed). b) Explain how the database organises itself and suggest a reason why the two figures should be so different. or c) Convince me there's no point and a significant danger to the procedure so I don't have to come in on Saturday and Sunday. many thanks, Jolyon -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 July 2003 06:12 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency It is reasonable to expect an inconsistency when the databases aren't consistent? What if you run the defrag twice ON THE SAME DATABASE, i.e., copies from the same unmodifed database? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions We have recently deleted a large (700+) number of accounts and mailboxes. It has been decided that defragmenting the store would be useful. We have tested the procedure on a disaster recovery server. Twice. The two restored stores were about a week apart in date and no drastic changes were made in the meantime. The first defrag completed in around 6 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB to 39GB The second defrag completed in around 9 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB to 57GB Previous tests of eseutil on other servers have apparently revealed similarly inconsistent results. Does anyone have a good idea about what is going on? If we can recover 21GB it would be well worth the trouble but if it is nearer 3 then the risk and disruption would make it a pointless task. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency
To get a good estimate, look at your Event logs after Nightly online maintenance has run. You should see an event number 1221 for each of your Stores indicating how much free space is in the database after online defragmentation has completed. This figure is your White Space, and is a general indication of how much space you might be able to regain with an offline defrag (eseutil). Ben Winzenz Network Engineer Gardner White (317) 581-1580 ext 418 -Original Message- From: Shotton Jolyon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:08 AM Posted To: Exchange (Swynk) Conversation: eseutil defrag inconsistency Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency You are, of course, correct that I should not expect identical results and it's perhaps harsh of me to 'accuse' the tool of inconsistency if I'm moving the goalposts. So let me rephrase things. What I'm trying to achieve is a good estimate of how much use the procedure would be if I were to run it on Saturday. Obviously I haven't got Saturday's database to try it on so I won't be able to run a test that will show me this precisely. However running tests on databases a few days apart would, I thought, give me an idea on whether there would be a broadly similar reduction in database size or whether there would be a diminishing return over time. I was surprised to find that on databases from only a few days apart the amount of regained space was reduced by 85%. Can anyone a) Tell me what sort of returns I might expect given their experiences with the tool (and bearing in mind a number of accounts have been removed). b) Explain how the database organises itself and suggest a reason why the two figures should be so different. or c) Convince me there's no point and a significant danger to the procedure so I don't have to come in on Saturday and Sunday. many thanks, Jolyon -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 July 2003 06:12 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency It is reasonable to expect an inconsistency when the databases aren't consistent? What if you run the defrag twice ON THE SAME DATABASE, i.e., copies from the same unmodifed database? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions We have recently deleted a large (700+) number of accounts and mailboxes. It has been decided that defragmenting the store would be useful. We have tested the procedure on a disaster recovery server. Twice. The two restored stores were about a week apart in date and no drastic changes were made in the meantime. The first defrag completed in around 6 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB to 39GB The second defrag completed in around 9 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB to 57GB Previous tests of eseutil on other servers have apparently revealed similarly inconsistent results. Does anyone have a good idea about what is going on? If we can recover 21GB it would be well worth the trouble but if it is nearer 3 then the risk and disruption would make it a pointless task. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
eseutil defrag inconsistency
We have recently deleted a large (700+) number of accounts and mailboxes. It has been decided that defragmenting the store would be useful. We have tested the procedure on a disaster recovery server. Twice. The two restored stores were about a week apart in date and no drastic changes were made in the meantime. The first defrag completed in around 6 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB to 39GB The second defrag completed in around 9 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB to 57GB Previous tests of eseutil on other servers have apparently revealed similarly inconsistent results. Does anyone have a good idea about what is going on? If we can recover 21GB it would be well worth the trouble but if it is nearer 3 then the risk and disruption would make it a pointless task. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: eseutil defrag inconsistency
It is reasonable to expect an inconsistency when the databases aren't consistent? What if you run the defrag twice ON THE SAME DATABASE, i.e., copies from the same unmodifed database? Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Helping others with Exchange for over a twentieth of a century. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shotton Jolyon Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 7:45 AM To: Exchange Discussions We have recently deleted a large (700+) number of accounts and mailboxes. It has been decided that defragmenting the store would be useful. We have tested the procedure on a disaster recovery server. Twice. The two restored stores were about a week apart in date and no drastic changes were made in the meantime. The first defrag completed in around 6 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB to 39GB The second defrag completed in around 9 hours and reduced priv.edb from 60GB to 57GB Previous tests of eseutil on other servers have apparently revealed similarly inconsistent results. Does anyone have a good idea about what is going on? If we can recover 21GB it would be well worth the trouble but if it is nearer 3 then the risk and disruption would make it a pointless task. The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the recipient or entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential information that is exempt from disclosure by law and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any act in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete from your system. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
