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
305 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 49

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 (7315)
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 (7315)
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 (7315)
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:

Exchange 2003 Standby
Currently have: --------------- 1 Server: Windows 2003 AD DC / Exchange 2003 Standard Editions - Native (25 users) GOAL: -------- I would like to have a second Windows 2003 AD DC / Exchange 2003 for failover. QUESTION: -------------- How should I set this second server up as a DC and Exchange (main thing is Exchange redundancy), and what kind of failover does this provide? Thx. "JD" <jd@mailme.com> wrote: >Currently have: >--------------- >1 Server: Windows 2003 AD DC / Exchange 2003 Standard Editions - Native (25 >users) > >GOAL: >-------- >I w...

Cannot get web services edition to connect to Exchange 2010
Version: 2008 Operating System: Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) Processor: Intel Email Client: Exchange I recently installed Exchange 2010 for a client, <br> and i have upgraded Entourage on one of the Macs to Web Services Edition, but no matter how many times i try, i cannot get it to connect to the Exchange server. It just stays as &quot;not connected&quot; and doesn't display any error message. I have tried all sorts of troubleshooting, I can access OWA as the user fine, and i get a responce when i goto <a href="https://servername/ews/exchange.asmx">https://se...

Exchange 2000 media part numbers
Please help! we have a open license for Exchange 2000 Standard Edition. Until now we only had 5.5 installed but we want to bring the server up to 2000. I need to order the media but I can't seem to find which of the following Microsoft media part numbers I need to order: 312-01977, 312-02469, 312-01320. I tried searching these part numbers on the Microsoft website with no results and the Exchange server web pages don't seem to have part numbers shown. Thanks for your help, Mike Lawson Call a local VAR. You dont want 2000 anyway. 2003 is the ticket! On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 17:53:49 G...

DL size limit change
We have a user thats trying to save a distribution list to the server. He is trying to save 95 names. We are using excg5.5, Is their a setting on the server that limits the amount of names that can be saved in a dl. If so can it be changed, and where can it be changed. Also does outlook have dl size limits, how can these be changed? Thanks in advance there is a limit on personal distribution lists - I think it is 165 members - but I have DLs on Exchange servers that contain over 2000 names. Anything that needs more members than that, I nest...how is your user trying to do this? only Ex...

Exchange 5.5 ADC Removal Problem
I installed an exchange 2003 server. I migrated all the data and removed the last 5.5 server. When I run the Exchange Best Practices Analyzer it reports that the 5.5 server still has 2 connection agreements and the server is down and the adc cannot be located. The old server has been decommissioned, rebuilt, and re-deployed in another capacity. What can I do to resolve this? -- Go speed racer! Use AdsiEdit to remove the references to the Exch 5.5 server from AD. This article (the section on removing from AD) will point you in the right direction: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/83...

One Exchange Server for Two Domain Accounts
I registered two Internet domains (domainA.com and domainB.com) and setup one mail server to serve domainA.com. Is it possible to point both domain MX records to the same mail server ip so that both user@domainA.com and user@domainB.com can be handled by the same mail server? Thank you for any input! Should not be a problem. -- regards, Michael Abbaticchio MVP for Exchange Server http://exchange.mvps.org "Wayne" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:119301c49ae7$d8cc0a30$a601280a@phx.gbl... >I registered two Internet domains (domainA.com and...

domain User accounts
im planning to install CRM and related softwares with the following user accounts i have a domain called "crm domain" which is in native mode. i have separate machines to act as CRM server and SQL Server. A user has been created in AD called as CRMAdmin. It is a member of the Domain Administrators group. - On the proposed SQL Server , - logged into the machine as "LocAdmin" - installed SQL Server - service running under local system account - On the proposed CRM server machine, - Prerequisites installed by logging into the machine as "LocAdmin" who has local ...

Maintaining the size of the excel tables
I have been trying to insert tables from excel into my publisher file. I tried to insert them as an object and they didnt look good. I used pase sepcial and inserted them as enhanced pictures and other time as an excel sheet. However, no matter what I do I cant get these tables to look the same as they are in the excel sheet. They dont maintain the size and neither the look. Either the table looks too loose or the letters and numbers looks bigger than the orginal. Any tips or advices please ? Maybe the solution would be to create a table in Publisher, copy the cells in Excel, p...

Relationship Betwee Exchange Mailbox SCL Setting and Outlook Spam Setting
At one of my clients I have set the Exchange Server SCL threshold at 8 and the mailbox threshold at 7 for the Intelligent Message Filter I have set the Junk Mail setting in the users' Outlook 2003 to 'low'. I have updated the Exchange Server and Outlook Intelligent Message Filters. My question is how does the mailbox threshold of 7 in Exchange interact/relate to a user's Outlook 2003 Junk Mail Setting of 'low' or 'medium'? I have never seen this described. Thank you in advance. -- Regards, Allan C Outlook (2003) Junk Mail feature does not interact wit...

To get the CSliderCtrl to move the just place where user clicked.
I am using CSliderCtrl and there is one thing I want. I want the button to get to the place where the user clicked. In default way, it moves to right or left with page size. So, I tried to calculate the position where the user clicked from the slider's channel rect and mouse position and set the position with SetPos. But there are two problems. (1)The button moves two times when user clicked it every single time. (2)The channel rect is larger than the area where the button is able to move.So I can not calculate the exact position. Any ideas? Thanks!! ...

Password reset option for Exchange 2003 OWA users
Hello All. i am having a problem in providing the Password reset option for my Exchange 2003 mail users. I have recently switched to SSL Form based authentication for exchange server. Now the main prob is to provide password reset option to the users. If there is any one? kindly tell me is this feature available in Exchange 2003 or do i have to use any third party software for this feature? because in exchange 2000 it was available under option menu. Waiting for a response... Affan Aschraf take a look at this http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;297121 http://sup...

Message Size Limits
First off, yes, I'm familiar with http://support.microsoft.com/?id=322679 According to this article, the most restrictive policy always applies. Now what I want to do is very simple: 1.) Limit internal emails to 20MB 2.) Limit internet emails to 10MB 3.) Allow certain users a specified message size limit, even greater than 20MB. I see no way to accomplish this if the global 20MB limit is always going to take effect because it's the most restrictive. There must be *SOME* simple way to grant certain users a custom message size limit. There may be a business emergency situation w...

Can CRM Share an Exchange Server
Hello, We installed CRM on W2K3 server with Exchange 2003 running on it. We are assuming that this configuration will be OK given that they are supporting an install on SBS. Howerver, we had trouble adding users so we uninstalled. Upon reinstalling we keep getting a failure during provisioning. Can anyone shed any light on 1. Is it Ok to put this think on the Exchange Box? The exchange box only supports 10 users, but it is P4 Dual 2.8 Dell 2850 with 2G ram, so it is plenty powerful. 2. What do we do about this failure during the reinstall? Any suggestions as to where to look ...

Slow respond for open message from Outlook 2000 Client connected to Exchange 2003 server
Dear All, We have migrated the Exchange 2000 server to 2003 (active-passive cluster) for more than five months. Most of our client still using Outlook 2000 and work fine with the Exchanger 2003 server. However, few days before most user complained the Outlook client need long time to open a message (1MB size need around 1 minute to open). After investigation we found the Exchange server utilization and memory usage is normal, and this problem only occurred in Outlook 2000 client, but OWA and Outlook 2003 client still work normally. We have tried to restart the Exchange cluster, but...

can't view exchange information store or directory in arcserve 2000
I hope someone can help with this. I am running Arcserve 2000 and have the exchange (2000) agents loaded on the same W2K servers. In Arcserve when I click on the Microsoft Exchange Server node under the source tab on the left, in the top right window it tells me 'There are no items to display in this view'. I have 2 exchange servers in the one organisation and the same happens with both. I would contact CA support. On 26 Apr 2005 05:37:17 -0700, john.robinson@inyx-pharma.co.uk (john r) wrote: >I hope someone can help with this. > >I am running Arcserve 2000 and have the...

OST/PST Size Limitation in Outlook 2003
I have read that Outlook 2003 supports greater OST and PST file sizes (greater than the 2Gig limitation of earlier versions of Outlook), but I haven't seen what this new file size can be. Does anyone know? I understand that the Outlook client must be on Exchange 2000/2003 in order to gain the new size capability. Is that true too? Thanks... Mike I believe it's only for Exchange 2003, with regard to the OST file. Mike Ballard wrote: > I have read that Outlook 2003 supports greater OST and > PST file sizes (greater than the 2Gig limitation of > earlier versions of Outloo...

changing field size
Hello there if i have form with data that i present as datasheet is there a way to diterme the field size by code? hi Roy, Roy Goldhammer wrote: > if i have form with data that i present as datasheet is there a way to > diterme the field size by code? Take a look at the object explorer in the VBA IDE: go to the VBA IDE and press F2. Search for TextBox and examine the column properties. mfG --> stefan <-- Thankes Stefen i found out the Column with property for that. Now is there a way so set the size of texbox or checkbox in datasheet view automaticly by the largest...

FRx Report/Paper Size
1) while printing a FRx report will many columns, is there a way to control/set that from certain column onward, it will be printed on a new page, with row information. 2) while including Transaciton/accounts attribute (T_ATTR) in column B and column C is CUR, column D is YTD, is there a way to suppress column B while viewing/printing the report in accounts summary, and only print column B while viewing/printing the details transaction report? thks ...

OWA with Exchange 2003 Server (SBS2003 std)
Hi there, Since some time now, I can't open mails thru OWA. I can log on, I can see the messages, but while loading the pages, I get the yellow warnings that there are errors. I can see the message header, but if I double click on any message, nothing happens. I tried it on 10 different PC's with all different locations and Operating systems. Can some one help me? Thanks Duncan On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:06:28 -0800, Kankantrie <Kankantrie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Hi there, > >Since some time now, I can't open mails thru OWA. I can log on, I can see &...

powerpoint slide
Is it possible to print a powerpoint slide to a credit card size? thank you Page Setup>Slides Size for: Custom. Type in your custom size. "Kiran" wrote: > Is it possible to print a powerpoint slide to a credit card size? thank you In article <3BF2A055-D637-4C7E-A764-4F3A9419586F@microsoft.com>, Kiran wrote: > Is it possible to print a powerpoint slide to a credit card size? thank you Sue's suggestion is one approach. Understand that changing the proportions of a slide may distort the slide's contents though. If your printer has a credit car...

Exchange 2007: Email to the internet possible without Edge subscription? (stand-alone Exchange server)
I just installed E2k7, i created a send connector to domain "*" and have set my external smtp server (smtp.externalhost.com) as smarthost. However, email sent to the internet gets bounced with the message: undeliverable. I don't have Edge subscription. What should I check? On 29 Oct 2006 14:08:45 -0800, "Prem" <premmetje@zonnet.nl> wrote: >I just installed E2k7, i created a send connector to domain "*" and >have set my external smtp server (smtp.externalhost.com) as smarthost. >However, email sent to the internet gets bounced with the message...

Bizarre Appointment glitch -- Account icon appearing for Users, pre-save
Before saving the appointment, all Users input in the Required field have an Account icon next to it. After save, the correct icon is showing. A bizarre inconvenience, but has created some frustrating user experience, especially for users trying to understand the difference between users, contacts, and accounts. Have GroupCalendar resold by c360 installed, and we asked the developers in Austria about this, thinking it might be their end. They claim it's a CRM issue. CRM 3.0 w/ VC3 patch Outlook 2003 Thank you, Van Yang Chicago, IL ...

can not change size of windows for word or excel docs #2
Version: 2008 Operating System: Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) Processor: Intel Often when I open an excel or word document it opens in a small window in the upper left corner. i can not resize or enlarge the viewing window. I have tried dragging the lower right corner, toggling the green and yellow buttons on the top left, changing the VIEW and selecting the "FULL SCREEN" optin in the VIEW menu. It sounds like you've not applied the necessary updates to Office - SP2 (12.2.0) & 12.2.1, and possibly not the OS X 10.6.1 update. Especially if you're using Spaces the windowin...

Defragment exchange 2003 database with systemattendant mailbox?
Hi, We have a exchange server (2k3 enterprise), where some of the databases are about 100GB. We are going to move the users mailboxes to new store's, and if possible, defragment the old stores. One of the stores are contaning the systemattendant mailbox. This mailbox along with the system mailbox can not be moved by using the tools in ESM. Can I safely defragment the database contanining the systemattendant mailbox? What problems could I have? Best regards Bjoern On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 01:23:00 -0800, Kleppis <Kleppis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >Hi, > >We have a...

Exchange 5.5 connection with 256K Frame
I added a second Exchange 5.5 server to our site. Tested it via local LAN. Moved mailboxes back and forth, sent emails back and forth with no problem. Moved the server to the other building, I can ping the other mail server, even administer the other server, but it does not forward any email between the two servers..Please help!!! Thanks in advance, Techguy This is the discussion for Exchange 2003 >-----Original Message----- >I added a second Exchange 5.5 server to our site. Tested it via local LAN. >Moved mailboxes back and forth, sent emails back and forth with no problem....