Mailbox size limits--why? 5

[jc64]

I have an Exchange 2003 SP2 server which has a 34GB IS. As I look at my mailboxes I see that some of them have grown to almost 1GB in size. Average size is currently 200MB. While I understand that big mailboxes are inefficient, can someone give me some ammunition to use when I approach the boss to tell him why a 900MB mailbox is bad?
TIA,
JC

 

[NortonES2]

Are you running Standard or Enterprise? If standard then you have an IS size limit of 75Gb.

Amount of time it takes to backup \ restore

Disk \ Tape capacity

Just some quick thoughts, sure you will probably get some more.

-------------------------------

If it doesn't leak oil it must be empty!!

 

[ShackDaddy]

I thought of a couple others:

- Time it takes the Store to mount when you reboot or start/stop the Store service

- Amount of hassle it would cause if someone hooked a new system up to the network that was set to store mail in the local .pst (Augggh, my mail's disappearing!)

ShackDaddy

 

[Zelandakh]

900MB is BAD? Yikes. Hmm so my users with 5GB should be shot then...

If you have the capacity then let it happen. If the server is filling the volume you don't want it totally full as that's pretty bad. In fact you don't want the volume over 40% full.

 

[rliebsch]

if you follow the new guidelines and set up storage groups with multiple stores your mounting, backup, maintenance, recovery times can be minimalized.

I have 50 users, I am over 100GB now, with some users approaching 4GB of mail. And all of my users are using Entourage.



Robert Liebsch
Stone Yamashita Partners

http://www.stoneyamashita.com/

 

[jc64]

>>900MB is BAD? Yikes. Hmm so my users with 5GB should be shot then...<<
Well...yes....

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be a hardass. I fully realize that infrastructure is of secondary importance to running the business. I just see inherent laziness with an end user turning a mail server into a file server. Not to mention the DR issues inherent in allowing your personal mailbox to bloat. Personally I notice minor performance issues when I allow my mailbox to grow over a couple hundred MB. I would expect a user with a 5GB mailbox to experience latency in simple message searches, no?
JC64

 

[58sniper]

Exmerge won't export a mailbox over 2GB without having to do it in pieces.

Restore times

AV scanning issues

Backup times

File I/O

Email discovery in legal cases.

the list goes on and on.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)

 

[SteveMCSE]

Exchange defrag will take a long time too on an IS that is that big.

Turn on indexing on the information store if you're worried about search times.

If you are concerned about the size of a single store getting too big then create more stores and move mailboxes to them. And to that end you could put people with small mailboxes in one store and give that store lower limits. Put people with big mailboxes in another store and give that store higher limits. Over time you can slowly lower the limits until people's mailboxes are smaller (assuming they actually clean them and not just call the helpdesk and ask for more space).

jc64 - you are right when you say that the company doing business is more important than the infrastructure - but without a healthy infrastructure the company might not be able to do business efficiently (or at all depending on the nature of the business).


Steve
Systems Engineer

 

[58sniper]

But you can only create more stores if you're using Enterprise and not Standard.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)

 

[Zelandakh]

Rob - that was best practice in Exchange 2000. From 2003 it is recommended to have one store per SG until you run out of SGs.

 

[SteveMCSE]

When you add storage groups you increase system resource utilization more so than if you add stores to an existing storage group. 2 SGs with 1 store each uses more memory and creates more threads than 1 SG with 2 stores.

You create 1 set of transaction logs per SG. If you go creating multiple groups just to put 1 store in each you will have to backup transaction logs for each store. This might not matter if you are using cirular logging or don't do incremental backups. But once you need to capture the transaction logs to restore more than 1 store you will have to do double the work.

Where does the statement "From 2003 it is recommended to have one store per SG until you run out of SGs" come from?

Steve
Systems Engineer

 

[Zelandakh]

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;890699

explains it all Steve.

 

[NickFerrar]

Not having any limits is risky as you're open to a denial of service from mass spam filling your IS.

Apart from that it's a question of backup/restore times and getting your users managing their email properly. There's no point sticking in a 250MB limit if it means they just go and create PST files on your file servers instead. They just need guidance on not archiving everything, clearing out sent and deleted items and stripping unneccesary atttachments from messages they want to keep.

 

[Zelandakh]

PST files can be banned using a GPO / Outlook Res Kit. They are a bad idea anyway.

250MB is chicken feed. Just go and buy a nice big LOT-3 Ultrium library, a copy of Aelita Recovery Manager and a multi terabyte fibre array. Let them eat cake!!

 

[58sniper]

Are you sure they can be banned via that GPO? markdmac & I were just coming up with a custom adm file because that option isn't in the Office 2003 adm file.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)

 

[Zelandakh]

Yeah ok, you got me. I meant adm not GPO. Have a star on me Pat.

 

[58sniper]

Not a problem - was just making sure we didn't miss something.

Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)