size limit for a user's exchange mailbox

Hi there
Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can grow to? 
Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
Best regards
Loane 


0
7/27/2005 5:37:38 PM
exchange.admin 57650 articles. 2 followers. Follow

21 Replies
330 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 1

For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. The 
theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large as 
the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the hardware 
capacity that you store it on.

There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be functional 
anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.

Rummie


"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi there
> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can grow to? 
> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
> Best regards
> Loane
> 


0
7/27/2005 6:49:26 PM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. The 
>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large as 
>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the hardware 
>capacity that you store it on.

Why 200? What are you basing that on?


>
>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be functional 
>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>
>Rummie
>
>
>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hi there
>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can grow to? 
>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>> Best regards
>> Loane
>> 
>

0
adavid (8731)
7/27/2005 6:55:59 PM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:55:59 -0400, Andy David - MVP
<adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> hired a team of monkeys to
write:

>On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. The 
>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large as 
>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the hardware 
>>capacity that you store it on.
>
>Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>
>
>>
>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be functional 
>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.

My mailbox is 1.6GB and seems relatively functional. 

-- 
Chris Scharff
Messaging Services Architect
MessageOne

Don't find fault, find a remedy. - Henry Ford
0
7/27/2005 7:19:30 PM
We have several users with over 500 Meg.  The limit currently is 14 Gig 
total mailstore for standard unlimitted for Enterprise.  SP2 will increase 
the limit to over 70 Gig for standard

CR
"Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote in message 
news:eNBh7vtkFHA.1608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. The 
> theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large as 
> the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the hardware 
> capacity that you store it on.
>
> There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be 
> functional anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>
> Rummie
>
>
> "Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hi there
>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can grow 
>> to? Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>> Best regards
>> Loane
>>
>
> 


0
nospam3434 (231)
7/27/2005 8:02:18 PM
Because there are practical limitations....

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the "Planning 
Mailbox Store Limits" section.

Also see - http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx 
where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know that the 
larger the number of items...the larger the overall size will be.

This should explain why, hope it helps.

Rummie


"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in message 
news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. The
>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large as
>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the hardware
>>capacity that you store it on.
>
> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>
>
>>
>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be 
>>functional
>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>
>>Rummie
>>
>>
>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi there
>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can grow 
>>> to?
>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>> Best regards
>>> Loane
>>>
>>
> 


0
7/27/2005 8:18:49 PM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

>Because there are practical limitations....
>
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the "Planning 
>Mailbox Store Limits" section.

	Those are just examples.
>
>Also see - http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx 
>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know that the 
>larger the number of items...the larger the overall size will be.
>
	That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes. 
	In fact to quote: 
	"It's item count, not size, that matters".


>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>
>Rummie
>
>
>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in message 
>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. The
>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large as
>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the hardware
>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>
>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be 
>>>functional
>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>
>>>Rummie
>>>
>>>
>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hi there
>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can grow 
>>>> to?
>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Loane
>>>>
>>>
>> 
>

0
adavid (8731)
7/27/2005 8:34:37 PM
Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for you in 
a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf 
issues.

:-)  Cheers.


"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in message 
news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>
>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the "Planning
>>Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>
> Those are just examples.
>>
>>Also see - 
>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know that the
>>larger the number of items...the larger the overall size will be.
>>
> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
> In fact to quote:
> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>
>
>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>
>>Rummie
>>
>>
>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in 
>>message
>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. The
>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large 
>>>>as
>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the 
>>>>hardware
>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>
>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>functional
>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>
>>>>Rummie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Hi there
>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can grow
>>>>> to?
>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>> Best regards
>>>>> Loane
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


0
7/27/2005 8:38:54 PM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for you in 
>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf 
>issues.
>
No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold water.
Nonetheless, to each his own.


>:-)  Cheers.




>
>
>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in message 
>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>
>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the "Planning
>>>Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>
>> Those are just examples.
>>>
>>>Also see - 
>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know that the
>>>larger the number of items...the larger the overall size will be.
>>>
>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>> In fact to quote:
>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>
>>
>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>
>>>Rummie
>>>
>>>
>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in 
>>>message
>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. The
>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large 
>>>>>as
>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the 
>>>>>hardware
>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>
>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>functional
>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can grow
>>>>>> to?
>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> 
>

0
adavid (8731)
7/27/2005 8:47:25 PM
Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site all the 
time with MS customers and often times they are suffering from poor mailbox 
size restriction planning. You would be very surprised just how much large 
mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and stability issues.

Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and send 
recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try to use 
their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.

Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own way.



"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in message 
news:2hsfe1l88c5dnrms3m9p5dr0fau9td0imh@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for you 
>>in
>>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf
>>issues.
>>
> No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
> statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold water.
> Nonetheless, to each his own.
>
>
>>:-)  Cheers.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in 
>>message
>>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>>
>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the "Planning
>>>>Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>>
>>> Those are just examples.
>>>>
>>>>Also see -
>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know that the
>>>>larger the number of items...the larger the overall size will be.
>>>>
>>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>>> In fact to quote:
>>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>>
>>>
>>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>>
>>>>Rummie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. 
>>>>>>The
>>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large
>>>>>>as
>>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the
>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>>functional
>>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can 
>>>>>>> grow
>>>>>>> to?
>>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


0
7/27/2005 8:53:41 PM
"Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote in
news:e0AOZ1ukFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl: 

> Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site
> all the time with MS customers and often times they are suffering from
> poor mailbox size restriction planning. You would be very surprised
> just how much large mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and
> stability issues. 
> 
> Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and send
> recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try
> to use their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.
> 
> Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own
> way. 
> 
> 

There could also be a limit because of storage. When you have a few 
thousand mailboxes, setting a 200 MB limit can be reasonable. With 
smaller user count, that's debatable. It's about where your balance is 
struck. When I run low on disk space, I'll present the options to 
management. Buy more disk and perhaps a more powerfull server, or limit 
the mailbox size. If they want to spend the money, I'll upgrade. 


> 
> "Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
> message news:2hsfe1l88c5dnrms3m9p5dr0fau9td0imh@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie"
>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for
>>>you in
>>>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf
>>>issues.
>>>
>> No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
>> statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold
>> water. Nonetheless, to each his own.
>>
>>
>>>:-)  Cheers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in 
>>>message
>>>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>>>
>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the
>>>>>"Planning Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>>>
>>>> Those are just examples.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also see -
>>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know
>>>>>that the larger the number of items...the larger the overall size
>>>>>will be. 
>>>>>
>>>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>>>> In fact to quote:
>>>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB
>>>>>>>mailboxes. The
>>>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as
>>>>>>>large as
>>>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the
>>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>>>functional
>>>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange
>>>>>>>> can grow
>>>>>>>> to?
>>>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> 
> 
> 
> 

0
compguy666 (112)
7/27/2005 10:04:45 PM
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:53:41 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
wrote:

>Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site all the 
>time with MS customers and often times they are suffering from poor mailbox 
>size restriction planning. You would be very surprised just how much large 
>mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and stability issues.
	I have never seen large mailbox sizes in of themselves affect
performance and stability of servers and I have been in many
organizations, large and small. .Large *stores* can affect backup
times and SLAs, but a large mailbox in of itself, though it may take
longer to open via Outlook, its not a given that causes other issues.
>
>Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and send 
>recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try to use 
>their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.

Again, whatever level the use, its because it fits a business
requirement, not over concerns that over a certain size affecting the
performance of their servers, etc....

>
>Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own way.
>
>

>
>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in message 
>news:2hsfe1l88c5dnrms3m9p5dr0fau9td0imh@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for you 
>>>in
>>>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf
>>>issues.
>>>
>> No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
>> statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold water.
>> Nonetheless, to each his own.
>>
>>
>>>:-)  Cheers.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in 
>>>message
>>>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>>>
>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the "Planning
>>>>>Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>>>
>>>> Those are just examples.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also see -
>>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know that the
>>>>>larger the number of items...the larger the overall size will be.
>>>>>
>>>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>>>> In fact to quote:
>>>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>>>
>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. 
>>>>>>>The
>>>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large
>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the
>>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>>>functional
>>>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange can 
>>>>>>>> grow
>>>>>>>> to?
>>>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> 
>

0
adavid (8731)
7/27/2005 10:25:27 PM
"Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:

>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. 

Why? Is there something magical that happens to larger mailboxes?

>The 
>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large as 
>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the hardware 
>capacity that you store it on.
>
>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be functional 
>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.

And here I was, thinking those GB+ size mailboxes were doing just
fine. :)

-- 
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
0
richnews (7316)
7/28/2005 1:15:43 AM
"Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:

>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size 

There's a big difference between "unlimited" and "200MB" (or 300MB,
400MB, etc.). We have mailboxes that have limits on them larger than
the UI will allow.

>restriction works out for you in 
>a large enterprise environment...

Would you care to define that environment?

>when i come on site to fix your perf 
>issues.

Why would I hire you to fix something that's not broken?

-- 
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
0
richnews (7316)
7/28/2005 1:19:00 AM
"Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:

>Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site all the 
>time with MS customers and often times they are suffering from poor mailbox 
>size restriction planning. You would be very surprised just how much large 
>mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and stability issues.

Yes, I guess I would.

>Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and send 
>recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try to use 
>their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.

They also run clustered servers, have passive cluster members
dedicated to backup, etc. But the limits they impose have more to do
with SLA's for restores than anything else.

>Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own way.

Yup.

-- 
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
0
richnews (7316)
7/28/2005 1:21:54 AM
ROFLMAO!!!!

"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" wrote:

> "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>
> >Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size
>
> There's a big difference between "unlimited" and "200MB" (or 300MB,
> 400MB, etc.). We have mailboxes that have limits on them larger than
> the UI will allow.
>
> >restriction works out for you in
> >a large enterprise environment...
>
> Would you care to define that environment?
>
> >when i come on site to fix your perf
> >issues.
>
> Why would I hire you to fix something that's not broken?
>
> --
> Rich Matheisen
> MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
> MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com

--
Please read http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm for how to make good post.

Text from most dialog boxes can be copied to clipboard with Ctrl-INS.


0
kpalagin (1838)
7/28/2005 3:59:10 AM
The point Andy is trying to make is that there is not a blanket 
recommendation that can be used in terms of mailbox size.  Business needs 
and available storage capacity should dictate mailbox sizes, not "Microsoft 
uses this limit, so we should too".  It is very doubtful that one will be 
able to enforce a blanket storage policy.  When the CEO says I need more 
space, you say "Yes sir" or "Yes Ma'am", or you'll be searching for a new 
job.  The size of mailboxes is something that should be worked out with 
management so that you can define clear corporate policy on best practices 
and then have your management stand behind you knowing that there are good 
reasons for defining the policy that you did.

-- 
Ben Winzenz
Exchange MVP
MessageOne


"Asher_N" <compguy666@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns96A0B7E83848Acompguy666hotmailcom@207.46.248.16...
> "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote in
> news:e0AOZ1ukFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>
>> Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site
>> all the time with MS customers and often times they are suffering from
>> poor mailbox size restriction planning. You would be very surprised
>> just how much large mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and
>> stability issues.
>>
>> Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and send
>> recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try
>> to use their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.
>>
>> Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own
>> way.
>>
>>
>
> There could also be a limit because of storage. When you have a few
> thousand mailboxes, setting a 200 MB limit can be reasonable. With
> smaller user count, that's debatable. It's about where your balance is
> struck. When I run low on disk space, I'll present the options to
> management. Buy more disk and perhaps a more powerfull server, or limit
> the mailbox size. If they want to spend the money, I'll upgrade.
>
>
>>
>> "Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>> message news:2hsfe1l88c5dnrms3m9p5dr0fau9td0imh@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for
>>>>you in
>>>>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf
>>>>issues.
>>>>
>>> No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
>>> statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold
>>> water. Nonetheless, to each his own.
>>>
>>>
>>>>:-)  Cheers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>message
>>>>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the
>>>>>>"Planning Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those are just examples.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also see -
>>>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know
>>>>>>that the larger the number of items...the larger the overall size
>>>>>>will be.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>>>>> In fact to quote:
>>>>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB
>>>>>>>>mailboxes. The
>>>>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as
>>>>>>>>large as
>>>>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the
>>>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>>>>functional
>>>>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange
>>>>>>>>> can grow
>>>>>>>>> to?
>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 


0
Ben
7/28/2005 1:07:50 PM
touche!

"Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" <ben_winzenz@NOSPAMdotmessageonedotcom> wrote 
in message news:u5iJdV3kFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The point Andy is trying to make is that there is not a blanket 
> recommendation that can be used in terms of mailbox size.  Business needs 
> and available storage capacity should dictate mailbox sizes, not 
> "Microsoft uses this limit, so we should too".  It is very doubtful that 
> one will be able to enforce a blanket storage policy.  When the CEO says I 
> need more space, you say "Yes sir" or "Yes Ma'am", or you'll be searching 
> for a new job.  The size of mailboxes is something that should be worked 
> out with management so that you can define clear corporate policy on best 
> practices and then have your management stand behind you knowing that 
> there are good reasons for defining the policy that you did.
>
> -- 
> Ben Winzenz
> Exchange MVP
> MessageOne
>
>
> "Asher_N" <compguy666@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:Xns96A0B7E83848Acompguy666hotmailcom@207.46.248.16...
>> "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote in
>> news:e0AOZ1ukFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>>
>>> Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site
>>> all the time with MS customers and often times they are suffering from
>>> poor mailbox size restriction planning. You would be very surprised
>>> just how much large mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and
>>> stability issues.
>>>
>>> Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and send
>>> recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try
>>> to use their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.
>>>
>>> Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own
>>> way.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There could also be a limit because of storage. When you have a few
>> thousand mailboxes, setting a 200 MB limit can be reasonable. With
>> smaller user count, that's debatable. It's about where your balance is
>> struck. When I run low on disk space, I'll present the options to
>> management. Buy more disk and perhaps a more powerfull server, or limit
>> the mailbox size. If they want to spend the money, I'll upgrade.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>> message news:2hsfe1l88c5dnrms3m9p5dr0fau9td0imh@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for
>>>>>you in
>>>>>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf
>>>>>issues.
>>>>>
>>>> No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
>>>> statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold
>>>> water. Nonetheless, to each his own.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>:-)  Cheers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>message
>>>>>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the
>>>>>>>"Planning Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those are just examples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Also see -
>>>>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>>>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know
>>>>>>>that the larger the number of items...the larger the overall size
>>>>>>>will be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>>>>>> In fact to quote:
>>>>>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB
>>>>>>>>>mailboxes. The
>>>>>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as
>>>>>>>>>large as
>>>>>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the
>>>>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>>>>>functional
>>>>>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange
>>>>>>>>>> can grow
>>>>>>>>>> to?
>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> 


0
7/29/2005 8:23:44 PM
What if that self-same CEO wants to be able to access every mail he's ever 
sent or received ... amounting to 15,000+ mails in a 1.5GB mailbox ... while 
simultaneously having great performance ito mobile access to the mail server 
(HTTP/RPC, VPN, dial-up or otherwise)?

"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:%23TkJutHlFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> touche!
>
> "Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" <ben_winzenz@NOSPAMdotmessageonedotcom> wrote 
> in message news:u5iJdV3kFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> The point Andy is trying to make is that there is not a blanket 
>> recommendation that can be used in terms of mailbox size.  Business needs 
>> and available storage capacity should dictate mailbox sizes, not 
>> "Microsoft uses this limit, so we should too".  It is very doubtful that 
>> one will be able to enforce a blanket storage policy.  When the CEO says 
>> I need more space, you say "Yes sir" or "Yes Ma'am", or you'll be 
>> searching for a new job.  The size of mailboxes is something that should 
>> be worked out with management so that you can define clear corporate 
>> policy on best practices and then have your management stand behind you 
>> knowing that there are good reasons for defining the policy that you did.
>>
>> -- 
>> Ben Winzenz
>> Exchange MVP
>> MessageOne
>>
>>
>> "Asher_N" <compguy666@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:Xns96A0B7E83848Acompguy666hotmailcom@207.46.248.16...
>>> "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote in
>>> news:e0AOZ1ukFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>>>
>>>> Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site
>>>> all the time with MS customers and often times they are suffering from
>>>> poor mailbox size restriction planning. You would be very surprised
>>>> just how much large mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and
>>>> stability issues.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and send
>>>> recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try
>>>> to use their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.
>>>>
>>>> Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own
>>>> way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There could also be a limit because of storage. When you have a few
>>> thousand mailboxes, setting a 200 MB limit can be reasonable. With
>>> smaller user count, that's debatable. It's about where your balance is
>>> struck. When I run low on disk space, I'll present the options to
>>> management. Buy more disk and perhaps a more powerfull server, or limit
>>> the mailbox size. If they want to spend the money, I'll upgrade.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:2hsfe1l88c5dnrms3m9p5dr0fau9td0imh@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for
>>>>>>you in
>>>>>>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf
>>>>>>issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
>>>>> statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold
>>>>> water. Nonetheless, to each his own.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>:-)  Cheers.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>>message
>>>>>>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the
>>>>>>>>"Planning Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those are just examples.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Also see -
>>>>>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>>>>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know
>>>>>>>>that the larger the number of items...the larger the overall size
>>>>>>>>will be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>>>>>>> In fact to quote:
>>>>>>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB
>>>>>>>>>>mailboxes. The
>>>>>>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as
>>>>>>>>>>large as
>>>>>>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the
>>>>>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>>>>>>functional
>>>>>>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange
>>>>>>>>>>> can grow
>>>>>>>>>>> to?
>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
7/29/2005 8:38:38 PM
Outlook 2003 Cached mode, baybee.  I've known folks that have 10GB+ 
mailboxes using cached mode.  You would probably have to teach CEO how to 
file e-mails (15,000 messages in the Inbox would result in a horrible 
experience), but aside from that, the experience should be relatively 
pleasant.  I've used Outlook cached mode both over wireless and VPN 
connections and there is no discernable difference.  Over dialup, obviously 
sending/receiving messages would lag, but it's not a lag that affects 
performance of other things within Outlook.

-- 
Ben Winzenz
Exchange MVP
MessageOne


"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:OMr5C2HlFHA.1464@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What if that self-same CEO wants to be able to access every mail he's ever 
> sent or received ... amounting to 15,000+ mails in a 1.5GB mailbox ... 
> while simultaneously having great performance ito mobile access to the 
> mail server (HTTP/RPC, VPN, dial-up or otherwise)?
>
> "Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:%23TkJutHlFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> touche!
>>
>> "Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" <ben_winzenz@NOSPAMdotmessageonedotcom> 
>> wrote in message news:u5iJdV3kFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> The point Andy is trying to make is that there is not a blanket 
>>> recommendation that can be used in terms of mailbox size.  Business 
>>> needs and available storage capacity should dictate mailbox sizes, not 
>>> "Microsoft uses this limit, so we should too".  It is very doubtful that 
>>> one will be able to enforce a blanket storage policy.  When the CEO says 
>>> I need more space, you say "Yes sir" or "Yes Ma'am", or you'll be 
>>> searching for a new job.  The size of mailboxes is something that should 
>>> be worked out with management so that you can define clear corporate 
>>> policy on best practices and then have your management stand behind you 
>>> knowing that there are good reasons for defining the policy that you 
>>> did.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Ben Winzenz
>>> Exchange MVP
>>> MessageOne
>>>
>>>
>>> "Asher_N" <compguy666@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:Xns96A0B7E83848Acompguy666hotmailcom@207.46.248.16...
>>>> "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote in
>>>> news:e0AOZ1ukFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>>>>
>>>>> Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site
>>>>> all the time with MS customers and often times they are suffering from
>>>>> poor mailbox size restriction planning. You would be very surprised
>>>>> just how much large mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and
>>>>> stability issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and send
>>>>> recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try
>>>>> to use their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own
>>>>> way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There could also be a limit because of storage. When you have a few
>>>> thousand mailboxes, setting a 200 MB limit can be reasonable. With
>>>> smaller user count, that's debatable. It's about where your balance is
>>>> struck. When I run low on disk space, I'll present the options to
>>>> management. Buy more disk and perhaps a more powerfull server, or limit
>>>> the mailbox size. If they want to spend the money, I'll upgrade.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:2hsfe1l88c5dnrms3m9p5dr0fau9td0imh@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for
>>>>>>>you in
>>>>>>>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your perf
>>>>>>>issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
>>>>>> statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold
>>>>>> water. Nonetheless, to each his own.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>:-)  Cheers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the
>>>>>>>>>"Planning Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those are just examples.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Also see -
>>>>>>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>>>>>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know
>>>>>>>>>that the larger the number of items...the larger the overall size
>>>>>>>>>will be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>>>>>>>> In fact to quote:
>>>>>>>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB
>>>>>>>>>>>mailboxes. The
>>>>>>>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as
>>>>>>>>>>>large as
>>>>>>>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the
>>>>>>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>>>>>>>functional
>>>>>>>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange
>>>>>>>>>>>> can grow
>>>>>>>>>>>> to?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
Ben
7/29/2005 9:12:23 PM
We're using cached exchange mode, thanks, that's a relief, 1.5GB and 
counting.

"Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" <ben_winzenz@NOSPAMdotmessageonedotcom> wrote 
in message news:u7E13IIlFHA.3692@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Outlook 2003 Cached mode, baybee.  I've known folks that have 10GB+ 
> mailboxes using cached mode.  You would probably have to teach CEO how to 
> file e-mails (15,000 messages in the Inbox would result in a horrible 
> experience), but aside from that, the experience should be relatively 
> pleasant.  I've used Outlook cached mode both over wireless and VPN 
> connections and there is no discernable difference.  Over dialup, 
> obviously sending/receiving messages would lag, but it's not a lag that 
> affects performance of other things within Outlook.
>
> -- 
> Ben Winzenz
> Exchange MVP
> MessageOne
>
>
> "Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:OMr5C2HlFHA.1464@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> What if that self-same CEO wants to be able to access every mail he's 
>> ever sent or received ... amounting to 15,000+ mails in a 1.5GB mailbox 
>> ... while simultaneously having great performance ito mobile access to 
>> the mail server (HTTP/RPC, VPN, dial-up or otherwise)?
>>
>> "Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:%23TkJutHlFHA.2852@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> touche!
>>>
>>> "Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" <ben_winzenz@NOSPAMdotmessageonedotcom> 
>>> wrote in message news:u5iJdV3kFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>>> The point Andy is trying to make is that there is not a blanket 
>>>> recommendation that can be used in terms of mailbox size.  Business 
>>>> needs and available storage capacity should dictate mailbox sizes, not 
>>>> "Microsoft uses this limit, so we should too".  It is very doubtful 
>>>> that one will be able to enforce a blanket storage policy.  When the 
>>>> CEO says I need more space, you say "Yes sir" or "Yes Ma'am", or you'll 
>>>> be searching for a new job.  The size of mailboxes is something that 
>>>> should be worked out with management so that you can define clear 
>>>> corporate policy on best practices and then have your management stand 
>>>> behind you knowing that there are good reasons for defining the policy 
>>>> that you did.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Ben Winzenz
>>>> Exchange MVP
>>>> MessageOne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Asher_N" <compguy666@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>>> news:Xns96A0B7E83848Acompguy666hotmailcom@207.46.248.16...
>>>>> "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:e0AOZ1ukFHA.576@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Its just a reccomendation...based on what i have seen. I am on site
>>>>>> all the time with MS customers and often times they are suffering 
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> poor mailbox size restriction planning. You would be very surprised
>>>>>> just how much large mailbox sizes can contribute to org wide perf and
>>>>>> stability issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Microsoft Corp - Internally, uses a max mailbox size of 200MB and 
>>>>>> send
>>>>>> recieve limits under 10MB. Seeing as how they make the product, I try
>>>>>> to use their planning and limitation settings as a measuring stick.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my way....and as you correctly pointed out, we all do it our own
>>>>>> way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There could also be a limit because of storage. When you have a few
>>>>> thousand mailboxes, setting a 200 MB limit can be reasonable. With
>>>>> smaller user count, that's debatable. It's about where your balance is
>>>>> struck. When I run low on disk space, I'll present the options to
>>>>> management. Buy more disk and perhaps a more powerfull server, or 
>>>>> limit
>>>>> the mailbox size. If they want to spend the money, I'll upgrade.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:2hsfe1l88c5dnrms3m9p5dr0fau9td0imh@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:38:54 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ok. Let me know how unlimited mailbox size restriction works out for
>>>>>>>>you in
>>>>>>>>a large enterprise environment...when i come on site to fix your 
>>>>>>>>perf
>>>>>>>>issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one I know advocates unlimited mailbox sizes. But a blanket
>>>>>>> statement that you should limit a mailbox to 200 MB doesnt hold
>>>>>>> water. Nonetheless, to each his own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>:-)  Cheers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>news:mqrfe15msulu60nf2gtgfvdsalsn1u645k@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:18:49 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Because there are practical limitations....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=319583 Note the
>>>>>>>>>>"Planning Mailbox Store Limits" section.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Those are just examples.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Also see -
>>>>>>>>>>http://blogs.technet.com/exchange/archive/2005/03/14/395229.aspx
>>>>>>>>>>where we talk more about item count than size...but we all know
>>>>>>>>>>that the larger the number of items...the larger the overall size
>>>>>>>>>>will be.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That  nothing in there about limiting mailbox sizes.
>>>>>>>>> In fact to quote:
>>>>>>>>> "It's item count, not size, that matters".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This should explain why, hope it helps.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Andy David - MVP" <adavid@pleasekeepinngcheesebucket.com> wrote 
>>>>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>>>>message
>>>>>>>>>>news:15mfe1tr1khr1vk9dl8f71mnkpait54s0d@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 14:49:26 -0400, "Avrumie"
>>>>>>>>>>> <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB
>>>>>>>>>>>>mailboxes. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as
>>>>>>>>>>>>large as
>>>>>>>>>>>>the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>>hardware
>>>>>>>>>>>>capacity that you store it on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why 200? What are you basing that on?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be
>>>>>>>>>>>>functional
>>>>>>>>>>>>anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rummie
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>"Loane Sharp" <look_sharp_not@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>news:eGUNmHtkFHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there a practical limit to the size that a user's exchange
>>>>>>>>>>>>> can grow
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incidentally, is this different from the theoretical limit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loane
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> 


0
7/29/2005 10:29:41 PM
I've got mailboxes that are greater than 1 GB that are too many to count and 
a few that are over 5 GB.  No complaints from my users - it's store size that 
counts, not mailbox size.

"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" wrote:

> "Avrumie" <DoNotSpamMe@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> 
> >For practical reasons, you should restrict users to 200MB mailboxes. 
> 
> Why? Is there something magical that happens to larger mailboxes?
> 
> >The 
> >theoretical limit of the MB size is not restricted and can be as large as 
> >the DB itself can get...which at this time is limited only by the hardware 
> >capacity that you store it on.
> >
> >There are WAY many reasons that a MB of large size will never be functional 
> >anyway...but thats for a totally different discussion.
> 
> And here I was, thinking those GB+ size mailboxes were doing just
> fine. :)
> 
> -- 
> Rich Matheisen
> MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
> MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
> 
0
SilverICE (243)
8/5/2005 6:35:09 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

merge limitations
Last year in merging cells from an Excel to a document, Publisher 2000 had a limitation of 256 characters (including blanks, punctuation and special characters) per cell. Is this still true for Publisher 2003? Sure is and probably will not change. -- I have been able to create a column of cells in Excel next to the one to be merged that will tell me the size (length) of the information in the cells so that I don't exceed the limitation. For the curious: =LEN(A1) Entered and drug it down the 1,200 entries and found two that would exceed the limitation. >-----Original Mes...

user initials and auto correction
Hi, Can someone please help me with the following...? People usually type JD in the To: field when they want to send me an email via Outlook. After a recent addition and deletion of another account with the initials of JD I'm finding that it is default to this user - and it's not even trying to qualify the correct recipient with a list of possible users, like it does with other similar users. I would like it to ask for qualification and also default to my account. Any ideas anyone? Thanks, Joe "Joey D" <joeydocherty2404@hotmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > >Can...

Exchange 2000 DST Changes
How is one supposed to address the DST changes for Exchange 2000 if they do not have extended support to get the patch? Will Microsoft be providing a workaround like they did for Windows 2000? I'm referencing the following article: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/930879 It states : What to do before you run the Exchange tool Install DST updates Before you run the Exchange tool, make sure that client and server computers are updated correctly with the operating system and application DST updates. These updates must be installed in the following order: 1. Install the Windows DST upda...

Restoring Exchange 2000 cluster to "standard" Exchange 2000 Enterp
Hi all, At the moment we are creating a "full" test environment built from backup tapes from our live environment. DC's are all up and running. Our 2000 native forest exists out of a top domain and 2 child domains. All DC's are running 2000 SP3 as well as the Exchange servers. Exchange servers are located in the child domains. In one of the child domains which is NL.top.net we have an Exchange cluster, 2 nodes active/active eg. These would be EX01 and EX02 and running EX04 and EX05. Since we unfortunately do not have a SAN in our test site I will not be able to do a DR...

OL2003 (Exchange) and OE6 running in the same PC
We are currently upgrading our OS from W98SE to WinXP. Our VP is using Netscape v4.67 with dial-up to access his personal email from the ISP and Novell Groupwise for his internal corporate email. With the new WinXP, he will be authenticate to Active Directory and using Exchange 2003 (Outlook 2003) for corporate email. (Yep, no more Groupwise!!) I want to move him away from Netscape to OE6 (built-in with XP pro). During my test in the lab, for some reasons I can't have OE6 and OL2003 running at the same time. (I can launch either one but not both at the same time) He wants OE6 as his...

Exchange 2003 OWA #6
Exchange 2003 OWA I would appreciate if someone would be able to help me. When I'm trying to access Exchange 2003 Server via OWA, I'm getting error "The folder can't be displayed. You do not have permission to perform this action" We also running Microsoft ISA Server. Thanks ...

Exchange Connector Wizard error
I received this error while trying to run this wizard for a generic CRM user(what role does it have to have?) that would accept all email directly to CRM. I ran it on a client computer (was this wrong?) Here is the error, anyway. "Failed to initialize the rule management subsystem." What is the correct procedure to run this wizard? I did not find it anywhere. Thanks! ...

Exchange 5.5 to 2003 upgrade issue 3
We have upgraded our Exchange 5.5 server to 2003 and moved all the mailboxes and moved and re-homed the folders following the KB articles. We turned off the 5.5 services and for a week everything was working fine. Now for some reason the messages to the main distribution list is being sent to the old 5.5 server on a x400 protocol. How can I stop this and assure that the 2003 server is self contained so I can get rid of this server? ...

NNTP move to Exchange?
Hi, I'm having a problem with getting a NNTP feed from a INND 2.2.1 server to Exchange 2003; are there any known issues here? Has anyone done this type of migration before? What issues did you encounter? It seems as if Exchange just wants to pull down a few of the groups (of which we have over 100 internal) and even with that, not even pull all of the messages in from those few groups (it usually gets a few hundred messages). I'm using the basic NNTP wizards but everything looks to be configured correctly. Thanks, Dan ...

How to sort calendar entries on "size"
I would like to remove large size calendar entries by being able to sort on "size". I am able to sort Inbox items on size but not calendar. My company's exchange server has email account size quota and a 3rd of that quota is being held up by calendar entries on the server side, so I would like to get rid of the unwanted past celndar entries that occupy portion of my account quota. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. Umesh On 11/18/03 9:21 PM, in article 049b01c3ae43$d9cf01d0$a301280a@phx.gbl, "Umesh" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I would...

how to config Server for one user which has 2 mail address.
we have one NT4.0 + Exchange 5.5 Server "A" Email abc@xxx.com.cn ��and another windows2003 + exchange 2003 Server "B" abc@cn.xxx.com user name is same in A B��Mx record was be set ,question is how to config Exchange 2003 to receive down the mail to Server A , because of we need to replace A with B. thanks a lot. E2K3 setup guides you through common scenarios (like yours) pretty much holding your hand - on welcome screen tell it that you have existing E55 org and want to join it, then follow on-screen instructions. Having usable backup of Exchange databases and AD i...

Exchange Server 2000 Secuirty Setup problems
Dear I have apply wrong setting to our exchange server 2000 . The wrong setting as from exchange manager . mail store , I have apply everyone send as and receive as access right, the group included remote access via offline sync. This setting once apply , all user access other mailbox without apply access right. I have try disable this setting, after all local office user no problems, but a remote offline sync laptop user does not work . The error as below: Unable to display the folder. Microsoft Outlook could not access the specified folder location. The file C:\exchange\shawnb.ost cannot b...

Catch all outgoing email on Exchange and send copy to specified account
Hi all. I have been asked to find out if there is anyway to configure our mail server to catch all outgoing email from certain email accounts on our Exchange 2003 Enterprise server and forward a copy of this email to a specified account, also on the Exchange server. If anyone could point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. On 25 Oct 2006 04:10:54 -0700, googlegroups@tlbsolutions.com wrote: >Hi all. > >I have been asked to find out if there is anyway to configure our mail >server to catch all outgoing email from certain email accounts on our >Exchange 2003 Enterpr...

How do I setup an SMTP gateway / smart host for Exchange 5.5 internet bound mail
My current setup has a Windows NT 4.0 Exchange 5.5 server setting on our company LAN behind a Microsoft ISA Server. The Exchange server's Internet Mail Connector binds to (I assume this is the proper terms) port 25 on the ISA server for inbound and outbound Internet Mail. Our company has finally upgraded to a new Cisco Pix Firewall which we are able to setup a DMZ on. The suggestion by our ISP is to setup an SMTP gateway in the DMZ and have our internal Exchange server send mail to it destined for the Internet. I am aware that most of the work for making the connections from the SMTP ...

Time update as a limited user not working
I added time update permisssion to my limited user acct. but it does not work. When I try, the time synchonization is greyed out. How can I get it to work. Thanks. On Apr 4, 12:33=A0pm, Mint <chocolatemint77...@yahoo.com> wrote: > I added time update permisssion to my limited user acct. but it does > not work. > When I try, the time synchonization is greyed out. > > How can I get it to work. > > Thanks. Is this Windows MCE SP2? What method did you use to add time update permission to your limited user account? Does your unlimited user accou...

Duplicate Containers in AD after Exchange 2003 Migration
The scenario is: We migrated from an NT domain to a 2000 domain. Then about a year later we migrated from exchange 5.5 to exchange 2003. Once the migration was complete, we discovered that there were duplicate containers and OUs in "Active Directory Users and Computers" which were empty. For example, when we did the AD migration we created an OU hierarchy at the root of the domain. After the exchange migration we found a duplicate hierarchy structure under the Users container but it didnt actually contain any objects/information that was in the original OU structure. We don...

Outlook won't conect to Exchange
Client: XP pro, Office 2003 Pro Server: Server 2003 I cannot get a client's Outlook to connect to Exchange server--or at least I THINK that's the issue. I have tried everything that I and the sys admin can think of. We've even uninstalled and re-installed the whole of Office. Out of desparation, I tried something that I thought would probably not have any impact, but it worked--temporarily. I deleted the use's mail profile, and the application opened and displayed all the users mail! I thought I was pretty close to being home free, so then I closed Outlook and re-opened...

Limiting CRM application ability to aasigning user to approprite CRM security group
IT administrator that I have for client does not like the idea of CRM application assigning user group automatically. They prefer to do the security group assignment manually. Is this possible? What do I need to do to achieve that? Thanks Kyaw Hi Kyaw, I did it the following way for a customer: 1) You will need to precreate the five groups within your AD. There is no need of having a own OU (Container, Organizational Unit) for them. Follow the naming convention of your company or use the default namings from Microsoft for the five groups. There is no need for your AD Admin to assig...

Exchange Server C Drive No free space
Hi All, Need some advise. The Exchange Server during certain times C Drive will not have free space. I have check that during that period there is a temp file which will increase in size and takes up all the disk space in C. The file will not have any extension (the file name ex. T232C or R408). When this happened, the Exchange MTA service will stop, users will not able to send email. I have rum Spyware scan, Virus Scan, Online Virus scan, all seems to be cleaned). Anyone experience this before? Thanks in Advance for the help. -- Danny Chieng Technical Engineer On Wed, 26 Jul 2006...

Assistance with ESEUTIL ans ISINTEG on Exchange 5.5
Folks, I need to perform some maintenance on a exchange 5.5 server. My users are complaining about speed, etc... First, GOOD BACKUP! Second, Take down all MS Exchange services Third, I want to run "ISINTEG -s EXCHANGE -FIX" correct? This will hopefully fix ant integrity issues. I am told to run it over and over until it comes up clean.. Once the integrity check is clean... Fourth, I run these three: eseutil /d /ds eseutil /d /ispriv eseutil /d /ispub If all goes well... Finally, startup MS Exchange services.. This is my plan. Any suggesstions? Comments? 1) GOOD BA...

Newbie needs help with new Exchange 2003 installation
I am TOTALLY new to Exchange. We just installed Exchange Server 2003 on a Windows 2003 domain. I have one (test) account set up and it appears to work OK but I keep getting an error message that says "Task "Microsoft Exchange Server" reported error (0x8004010F): 'The operation failed. An object could not be found.' I know, I know...How could I possibly not understand THIS message? I appear to be getting mail but I' can't be sure. How can I check to see what's causing this (and more important...what object it's looking for?) Thanks for any help! -Fran- ...

Invoice Limit
I am thinking about purchasing Microsoft Money 2007 Home & Business. I had the 2003 version and remember it had a limit on how long the description could be for an item on the invoice. Is the description length still limited with the new version? Thanks In Advance! I am thinking about purchasing Microsoft Money 2007 Home & Business. I had the 2003 version and remember it had a limit on how long the description could be for an item on the invoice. Is the description length still limited with the new version? "Buford T. Justice" <BTJustice@???.com> wrote i...

Required OS for Exchange 2007
I have installed Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise 32 bit x64. When I try to run Exchange 2007, I receive "the image file setup.exe is valid but is for a machine type other than the current machine". Any idea? On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 22:52:43 -0800, "Xeon" <Xeon@donotemailme.com> wrote: >I have installed Windows 2003 R2 Enterprise 32 bit x64. When I try to run >Exchange 2007, I receive "the image file setup.exe is valid but is for a >machine type other than the current machine". Any idea? > So you arent using the 64 bit version of Windows? No...

Forward email from Sendmail to Exchange
Hi all, Has anyone successfully used the LUSER_RELAY feature of Sendmail to forward any unknown users to an Exchange server? I have defined LUSER_RELAY as host.mydomain.com, but when an email gets forwarded the domain portion of the email is stripped off and replaced with the value of USER_RELAY. This causes the email to bounce since the email domain is @mydomain.com not host.mydomain.com. I have tried using the FEATURE(preserve_luser_host), but that did not fix the problem. Is there a way to set up an SMTP connector pointing to host.mydomain.com and have the email deliverd to a users mail...

Exchange server reporting tool
Could someone recommend an exchange server reporting tool other than promodag? I will really appreciate the help. Thanks sl =?Utf-8?B?c2xhd2Fs?= <slawal@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in news:735D2C55-FB0E-44F4-8F6B-274B754A9FBE@microsoft.com: > Could someone recommend an exchange server reporting tool other than > promodag? I will really appreciate the help. Quest messagestats is good stuff. Regards, -- Arlo Clizer FAQ: http://www.exchangefaq.org Archives: http://groups.google.com i second that... -- Susan Conkey [MVP] "Arlo Clizer" <aclizer@online.goo...