RE: Reconnect Exchange 2010 mailbox

2013-02-05 Thread Guyer, Don
When you run this command, aren't you just forcing it to run right away so you don't have to wait until it runs when scheduled? We do this all the time with Xch2k7. That's the way I always understood it. Unless 2010 is different... Educate me as necessary. : ) Regards, Don Guyer Catholic

RE: Reconnect Exchange 2010 mailbox

2013-02-05 Thread Michael B. Smith
Theoretically, you should never HAVE to run the cmdlet. Exchange is supposed to be smart enough to do this for you. That is why the cmdlet is gone in Exchange 2013. Sent from my Windows Phone From: Guyer, Don Sent: 2/5/2013 3:54 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues

RE: Reconnect Exchange 2010 mailbox

2013-02-05 Thread Guyer, Don
Ahhh, thank you as usual, MBS! Regards, Don Guyer Catholic Health East - Information Technology Enterprise Directory Messaging Services 3805 West Chester Pike, Suite 100, Newtown Square, Pa 19073 email: dgu...@che.orgmailto:dgu...@che.org Office: 610.550.3595 | Cell: 610.955.6528 | Fax:

Re: Messages sent by Send As and Send On Behalf

2013-02-05 Thread Dave Vantine
I read this article along with the other requirements and this creates the on the client. The KB 2632409 is to allow this to be created on the Exchange server. I really do not want to go an modify individual client workstations/profiles when the should work at the server level. Thanks for the

RE: Exchange 2010 DAG move to new storage

2013-02-05 Thread Michael B. Smith
So you are actually trying to do two things at once? [1] Move your mailbox servers to virtual, [2] Move your mailbox server storage to new storage? From: Candee [mailto:can...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:11 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 DAG move to new

RE: Exchange 2010 DAG move to new storage

2013-02-05 Thread Michael B. Smith
Then I think you are doing it the hard way. Move the mailbox databases, DISMOUNT (or stop MSExchangeIS) on the passive server, mount both the new storage and the old storage at the same time, copy from old to new, remove the old storage, remap the new storage to the proper drive letters (or

RE: Exchange 2010 DAG move to new storage

2013-02-05 Thread Michael B. Smith
Oh, for this to work you CANNOT change the folder structure whatsoever. And stop the MSFTE service too. For example Robocopy D:\ G:\ /S /E /COPYALL From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2013 2:32 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues

Re: Exchange 2010 DAG move to new storage

2013-02-05 Thread Candee
Awesome - thank you! On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: Oh, for this to work you CANNOT change the folder structure whatsoever. And stop the MSFTE service too. ** ** For example ** ** Robocopy D:\ G:\ /S /E /COPYALL

Re: Exchange 2010 DAG move to new storage

2013-02-05 Thread Candee
Michael, is this documented somewhere? I can't seem to find it (my Google-Fu is weak today). I will have to be able to convince the team. Thanks again! Candee On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: Oh, for this to work you CANNOT change the folder

Re: Exchange 2010 DAG move to new storage

2013-02-05 Thread Doug Hampshire
Test it. Create a new, very small DAG. Create a mailbox. Perform the move as outlined. See if the test DAG/mailbox are still happy, happy. If so, then team will be convinced, no? On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Candee can...@gmail.com wrote: Michael, is this documented somewhere? I can't

Re: Exchange 2010 DAG move to new storage

2013-02-05 Thread Candee
hmmm... Maybe. =) On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Doug Hampshire dhampsh...@gmail.com wrote: Test it. Create a new, very small DAG. Create a mailbox. Perform the move as outlined. See if the test DAG/mailbox are still happy, happy. If so, then team will be convinced, no? On Tue, Feb 5,

RE: Activesync causing excessive transaction log growth on Exchange 2010

2013-02-05 Thread Joseph L. Casale
More than once, all I can say is apple's implementation of activesync is pure sh!t. Several ways to handle this - block them all:) - Use logparser to deduce which actual version and block it - Use logparser to see who's device, if not specific to a version, as mb problems can cause this