Urgent advice requested re: Exchange 5.5 Online/Offline defrag

Hi,

I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange 5.5.

We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.

Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store. There 
were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with after the 
recovery.

Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline 
deframentation using eseutil.

As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I had 
to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.

I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it 
reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the 
network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.

The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to 
play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.

There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I don't 
know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the moment. I 
looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and it is 
writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and it will 
take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time for the 
offline defrag about 48 hours.

When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the 
incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail etcetcetc 
to strip the required information in the store.

After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do another 
offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail is back.

My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough 
mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good is 
the online defrag at freeing up that space ?

I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad. 
Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.

I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a 
while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the 
online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.

I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag 
with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours 
and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the 
bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The 
server is a dell poweredge 2200).

I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would 
appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of 
mitigating the situation.

Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above .. 
whether they are sensible or not...

Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole 
strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and 
getting my users back up and working by Monday.


Thanks for any advice.

Yours

An admin having a peaceful week !


0
6/12/2004 11:46:00 AM
exchange.admin 57650 articles. 2 followers. Follow

12 Replies
652 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 18

Actually, the online defrag is good.  However, in your case I hardly think
it's worth it.  You didn't follow all of the advice which mentions that the
database has x amount of free space after online defrag etc.  If you had
seen that part, it would have indicated that off-line defrag wouldn't have
bought you much in the way of space recovery.

It's likely that after you remove the data from the store, you'll have some
time before that space gets reused.  That's what Exchange does. It reuses
the space where data used to be (called white space).  What happens is that
the data blob stays the same size, but won't grow until the store needs the
room.  It will first use the white space and then expand the store.

What I'm getting at, is that due to the time and risk of off-line defrag in
your situation, consider cleaning out the items as you say (mailbox
manager?), and buying yourself some time to get another solution in place.
Consider a monitoring solution as well if this is the same path you head
down later.  Defrag and database work is time consuming and may end up
costing more than buying Enterprise server version or trying to convert to
some other mailer.

Al


"Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
news:40caecd9$0$4588$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange 5.5.
>
> We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
>
> Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store. There
> were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with after the
> recovery.
>
> Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline
> deframentation using eseutil.
>
> As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I had
> to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
>
> I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it
> reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the
> network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
>
> The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to
> play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
>
> There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I don't
> know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the moment. I
> looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and it is
> writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and it will
> take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time for the
> offline defrag about 48 hours.
>
> When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the
> incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail etcetcetc
> to strip the required information in the store.
>
> After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do another
> offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail is back.
>
> My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough
> mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good is
> the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
>
> I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad.
> Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
>
> I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a
> while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the
> online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
>
> I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag
> with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours
> and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the
> bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The
> server is a dell poweredge 2200).
>
> I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would
> appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of
> mitigating the situation.
>
> Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above ..
> whether they are sensible or not...
>
> Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole
> strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and
> getting my users back up and working by Monday.
>
>
> Thanks for any advice.
>
> Yours
>
> An admin having a peaceful week !
>
>


0
6/12/2004 2:00:12 PM
Hi,

Thanks for the response...

Al Mulnick wrote:

> Actually, the online defrag is good.  However, in your case I hardly think
> it's worth it.

I am sure I understand why it isn't worth doing an online defrag if it 
is good. I meant I would do an online defrag after removing as much as 
possible from the mailboxes.

>  You didn't follow all of the advice which mentions that the
> database has x amount of free space after online defrag etc.  If you had
> seen that part, it would have indicated that off-line defrag wouldn't have
> bought you much in the way of space recovery.

Yes, I am sure you are right. Looking after this system is fairly new to 
me ...  I have been checking the event logs regularly and so no warnings 
about the approaching 16GB limit tho. I did see some online defrag 
messages saying there was x amount of free space.
When the problem occurred, I found the relevant ms article and followed 
it. Once it had started, I have read around a lot more, and realised 
that a eseutil /d would also have shown me how much I would have recovered.

> 
> It's likely that after you remove the data from the store, you'll have some
> time before that space gets reused.  That's what Exchange does. It reuses
> the space where data used to be (called white space).  What happens is that
> the data blob stays the same size, but won't grow until the store needs the
> room.  It will first use the white space and then expand the store.
> 
> What I'm getting at, is that due to the time and risk of off-line defrag in
> your situation, consider cleaning out the items as you say (mailbox
> manager?), and buying yourself some time to get another solution in place.

ok, from your comment earlier in the post then, you mean that using 
online defrag isn't worth it in the long term but it is a good short 
term/immediate solution ?

> Consider a monitoring solution as well if this is the same path you head
> down later.  Defrag and database work is time consuming and may end up
> costing more than buying Enterprise server version or trying to convert to
> some other mailer.

I spent some time yesterday on the phone trying to get a copy of 
Enterprise to run the setup on it, but our supplier didin't have and 
couldn't get a copy of Exchange 5.5 enterprise ... the suggestion was to 
move to Enterprise 2000 which makes some sense, but it didn't sound like 
the sensible  probably not the thing to do this weekend as an emergency 
measure.

As for the monitoring, I will adjust it and set up some accordingly.. 
once burnt twice shy. Logging seemed to be set to none when I was 
looking at it before starting the defrag.


Again, just to confirm the gist of your response. You are saying that 
the route I am going through of deleting unused/unwanted info and then 
running an online defrag should buy me time ?

Thanks for the advice, its appreciated..

Cheers



> 
> Al
> 
> 
> "Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
> news:40caecd9$0$4588$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange 5.5.
>>
>>We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
>>
>>Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store. There
>>were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with after the
>>recovery.
>>
>>Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline
>>deframentation using eseutil.
>>
>>As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I had
>>to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
>>
>>I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it
>>reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the
>>network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
>>
>>The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to
>>play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
>>
>>There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I don't
>>know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the moment. I
>>looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and it is
>>writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and it will
>>take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time for the
>>offline defrag about 48 hours.
>>
>>When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the
>>incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail etcetcetc
>>to strip the required information in the store.
>>
>>After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do another
>>offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail is back.
>>
>>My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough
>>mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good is
>>the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
>>
>>I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad.
>>Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
>>
>>I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a
>>while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the
>>online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
>>
>>I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag
>>with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours
>>and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the
>>bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The
>>server is a dell poweredge 2200).
>>
>>I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would
>>appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of
>>mitigating the situation.
>>
>>Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above ..
>>whether they are sensible or not...
>>
>>Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole
>>strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and
>>getting my users back up and working by Monday.
>>
>>
>>Thanks for any advice.
>>
>>Yours
>>
>>An admin having a peaceful week !
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
0
6/12/2004 2:32:36 PM
Offline defrag with temp file on the network is supposed to be long 
because of all round-trips over the plumbing. OTOH, local offline defrag 
  should be much faster.

Before offline defrag can shrink database online defrag (aka InfoStore 
maintenance) has to run, so you need to let it run (set InfoStore 
maintenance schedule to always). Also make sure deleted items retention 
is set to 0 before you start deleting everything.
P.S. Online defrag after SP2 is quite good at consolidating white space.
P.P.S. your times for offline defrag over the LAN look a bit high (by a 
factor of 2 or 3).


Help wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange 5.5.
> 
> We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
> 
> Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store. There 
> were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with after the 
> recovery.
> 
> Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline 
> deframentation using eseutil.
> 
> As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I had 
> to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
> 
> I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it 
> reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the 
> network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
> 
> The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to 
> play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
> 
> There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I don't 
> know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the moment. I 
> looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and it is 
> writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and it will 
> take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time for the 
> offline defrag about 48 hours.
> 
> When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the 
> incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail etcetcetc 
> to strip the required information in the store.
> 
> After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do another 
> offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail is back.
> 
> My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough 
> mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good is 
> the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
> 
> I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad. 
> Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
> 
> I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a 
> while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the 
> online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
> 
> I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag 
> with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours 
> and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the 
> bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The 
> server is a dell poweredge 2200).
> 
> I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would 
> appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of 
> mitigating the situation.
> 
> Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above .. 
> whether they are sensible or not...
> 
> Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole 
> strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and 
> getting my users back up and working by Monday.
> 
> 
> Thanks for any advice.
> 
> Yours
> 
> An admin having a peaceful week !
> 
> 

-- 
Help fight spam - designate sending servers for your domain.
http://spf.pobox.com

0
kpalagin5422 (293)
6/12/2004 6:07:44 PM
It seems that you are not exactly clear on offline/online defrag and 
their purpose.
You do offline derfag with ESEUTIL by stopping InfoStore (which makes it 
unavailable to users).
Online defrag (aka IS maintenance) is happening automagically, on set 
schedule, and only when InfoStore is running. Users are not affected 
(except performance is slightly degraded. See
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;159306
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;159196


Help wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the response...
> 
> Al Mulnick wrote:
> 
>> Actually, the online defrag is good.  However, in your case I hardly 
>> think
>> it's worth it.
> 
> 
> I am sure I understand why it isn't worth doing an online defrag if it 
> is good. I meant I would do an online defrag after removing as much as 
> possible from the mailboxes.
> 
>>  You didn't follow all of the advice which mentions that the
>> database has x amount of free space after online defrag etc.  If you had
>> seen that part, it would have indicated that off-line defrag wouldn't 
>> have
>> bought you much in the way of space recovery.
> 
> 
> Yes, I am sure you are right. Looking after this system is fairly new to 
> me ...  I have been checking the event logs regularly and so no warnings 
> about the approaching 16GB limit tho. I did see some online defrag 
> messages saying there was x amount of free space.
> When the problem occurred, I found the relevant ms article and followed 
> it. Once it had started, I have read around a lot more, and realised 
> that a eseutil /d would also have shown me how much I would have recovered.
> 
>>
>> It's likely that after you remove the data from the store, you'll have 
>> some
>> time before that space gets reused.  That's what Exchange does. It reuses
>> the space where data used to be (called white space).  What happens is 
>> that
>> the data blob stays the same size, but won't grow until the store 
>> needs the
>> room.  It will first use the white space and then expand the store.
>>
>> What I'm getting at, is that due to the time and risk of off-line 
>> defrag in
>> your situation, consider cleaning out the items as you say (mailbox
>> manager?), and buying yourself some time to get another solution in 
>> place.
> 
> 
> ok, from your comment earlier in the post then, you mean that using 
> online defrag isn't worth it in the long term but it is a good short 
> term/immediate solution ?
> 
>> Consider a monitoring solution as well if this is the same path you head
>> down later.  Defrag and database work is time consuming and may end up
>> costing more than buying Enterprise server version or trying to 
>> convert to
>> some other mailer.
> 
> 
> I spent some time yesterday on the phone trying to get a copy of 
> Enterprise to run the setup on it, but our supplier didin't have and 
> couldn't get a copy of Exchange 5.5 enterprise ... the suggestion was to 
> move to Enterprise 2000 which makes some sense, but it didn't sound like 
> the sensible  probably not the thing to do this weekend as an emergency 
> measure.
> 
> As for the monitoring, I will adjust it and set up some accordingly.. 
> once burnt twice shy. Logging seemed to be set to none when I was 
> looking at it before starting the defrag.
> 
> 
> Again, just to confirm the gist of your response. You are saying that 
> the route I am going through of deleting unused/unwanted info and then 
> running an online defrag should buy me time ?
> 
> Thanks for the advice, its appreciated..
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> Al
>>
>>
>> "Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
>> news:40caecd9$0$4588$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange 
>>> 5.5.
>>>
>>> We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
>>>
>>> Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store. There
>>> were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with after the
>>> recovery.
>>>
>>> Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline
>>> deframentation using eseutil.
>>>
>>> As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I had
>>> to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
>>>
>>> I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it
>>> reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the
>>> network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
>>>
>>> The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to
>>> play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
>>>
>>> There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I don't
>>> know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the moment. I
>>> looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and it is
>>> writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and it will
>>> take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time for the
>>> offline defrag about 48 hours.
>>>
>>> When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the
>>> incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail etcetcetc
>>> to strip the required information in the store.
>>>
>>> After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do another
>>> offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail is back.
>>>
>>> My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough
>>> mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good is
>>> the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
>>>
>>> I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad.
>>> Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
>>>
>>> I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a
>>> while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the
>>> online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
>>>
>>> I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag
>>> with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours
>>> and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the
>>> bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The
>>> server is a dell poweredge 2200).
>>>
>>> I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would
>>> appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of
>>> mitigating the situation.
>>>
>>> Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above ..
>>> whether they are sensible or not...
>>>
>>> Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole
>>> strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and
>>> getting my users back up and working by Monday.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for any advice.
>>>
>>> Yours
>>>
>>> An admin having a peaceful week !
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Help fight spam - designate sending servers for your domain.
http://spf.pobox.com

0
kpalagin5422 (293)
6/12/2004 7:14:16 PM
Hi,

Kirill S. Palagin wrote:
> Offline defrag with temp file on the network is supposed to be long 
> because of all round-trips over the plumbing. OTOH, local offline defrag 
>  should be much faster.

Yep .. I expected that would be the case .. I just felt nervous because 
the defragment part of the offline backup took about 20 hours and it now 
looks like the copy back took 28 hours.

> 
> Before offline defrag can shrink database online defrag (aka InfoStore 
> maintenance) has to run, so you need to let it run (set InfoStore 
> maintenance schedule to always).

ok thanks... I believe the online defrag has been set to always run..

> Also make sure deleted items retention 
> is set to 0 before you start deleting everything.

Ah, thanks .. that's a useful tip ! I will defintely set that

> P.S. Online defrag after SP2 is quite good at consolidating white space.

ok, that's good  .. I am not sure which SP it is running at the moment 
... I will check that .. I believe it is SP4
> P.P.S. your times for offline defrag over the LAN look a bit high (by a 
> factor of 2 or 3).

The offline defrag has just completed and took 176009.891 seconds which 
is just under 49 hours.

 From your other posting you mentioned that I might be confused about 
the difference betwen online and offline defragment. I understand the 
basic differences, the question was more geared towards whether Exchange 
would successfully use the whitespace generated by an online defrag or 
whether I absolutely had to perform an offline defrag to use it.

It sounds from the advice I am getting here that the Exchange should use 
the white space generated without requiring the offline defrag which 
means I have a better chance of getting things up and running again 
tomorrow.


Thanks for all the advice .. it helps to have reassurance and hints from 
people who have been through it...


Thanks...




> 
> 
> Help wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange 
>> 5.5.
>>
>> We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
>>
>> Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store. 
>> There were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with 
>> after the recovery.
>>
>> Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline 
>> deframentation using eseutil.
>>
>> As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I 
>> had to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
>>
>> I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it 
>> reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the 
>> network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
>>
>> The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to 
>> play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
>>
>> There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I 
>> don't know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the 
>> moment. I looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and 
>> it is writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and 
>> it will take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time 
>> for the offline defrag about 48 hours.
>>
>> When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the 
>> incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail 
>> etcetcetc to strip the required information in the store.
>>
>> After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do 
>> another offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail 
>> is back.
>>
>> My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough 
>> mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good 
>> is the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
>>
>> I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad. 
>> Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
>>
>> I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a 
>> while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the 
>> online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
>>
>> I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag 
>> with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours 
>> and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the 
>> bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The 
>> server is a dell poweredge 2200).
>>
>> I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would 
>> appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of 
>> mitigating the situation.
>>
>> Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above .. 
>> whether they are sensible or not...
>>
>> Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole 
>> strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and 
>> getting my users back up and working by Monday.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for any advice.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> An admin having a peaceful week !
>>
>>
> 
0
6/12/2004 9:00:22 PM
No, I think you pretty much have it now.  Online maintenance is used to
recover database space (tables and indexes and such).  Offline defrag is to
recover physical disk space.

I think if you clear out a bunch of items in your store.  I mean a serious
amount percentage-wise.  For example, if you delete 25% of your items, then
it is *often* recommended to run an off-line defrag.  That's because it's
assumed that you would want to recover the space (that's why you deleted or
moved all of that data, right?) and more importantly to you, because the
online defrag will take longer to complete it's initial pass after a large
removal of data has occurred.  What I'm getting at is that you may want to
take that into account.  The next thing you'll see after removing large
quantities of data is that you'll get event log entries stating that the
online defrag ended at <insert configured time to end online defrag> which
may raise concern with you if you're not expecting it.  Now that you are,
realize that the system will start to defrag (online) and at the end of the
configured time, stop and then start again at the next interval where it
left off.  It's possible that you will never get to complete an online
defrag in your case depending on many many other factors.

I would suggest that you configure your server's online maintenance window
for every available minute after service hours.  Do not configure to occur
during other tasks (i.e. backups, virus scans, etc), but otherwise, have it
run for as long as you can each night until it catches back up.

Until you get a chance to upgrade, you'll likely have some time while the
database allows reuse of the white space vs. expanding the file to the 16gb
limit.  That amount of time will totally depend on the amount of traffic,
the size of the traffic, and the amount of data your users leave in there.
You'll have that long before this happens again.




Al



"Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
news:40cb6ec7$0$4591$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> Kirill S. Palagin wrote:
> > Offline defrag with temp file on the network is supposed to be long
> > because of all round-trips over the plumbing. OTOH, local offline defrag
> >  should be much faster.
>
> Yep .. I expected that would be the case .. I just felt nervous because
> the defragment part of the offline backup took about 20 hours and it now
> looks like the copy back took 28 hours.
>
> >
> > Before offline defrag can shrink database online defrag (aka InfoStore
> > maintenance) has to run, so you need to let it run (set InfoStore
> > maintenance schedule to always).
>
> ok thanks... I believe the online defrag has been set to always run..
>
> > Also make sure deleted items retention
> > is set to 0 before you start deleting everything.
>
> Ah, thanks .. that's a useful tip ! I will defintely set that
>
> > P.S. Online defrag after SP2 is quite good at consolidating white space.
>
> ok, that's good  .. I am not sure which SP it is running at the moment
> .. I will check that .. I believe it is SP4
> > P.P.S. your times for offline defrag over the LAN look a bit high (by a
> > factor of 2 or 3).
>
> The offline defrag has just completed and took 176009.891 seconds which
> is just under 49 hours.
>
>  From your other posting you mentioned that I might be confused about
> the difference betwen online and offline defragment. I understand the
> basic differences, the question was more geared towards whether Exchange
> would successfully use the whitespace generated by an online defrag or
> whether I absolutely had to perform an offline defrag to use it.
>
> It sounds from the advice I am getting here that the Exchange should use
> the white space generated without requiring the offline defrag which
> means I have a better chance of getting things up and running again
> tomorrow.
>
>
> Thanks for all the advice .. it helps to have reassurance and hints from
> people who have been through it...
>
>
> Thanks...
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Help wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange
> >> 5.5.
> >>
> >> We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
> >>
> >> Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store.
> >> There were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with
> >> after the recovery.
> >>
> >> Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline
> >> deframentation using eseutil.
> >>
> >> As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I
> >> had to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
> >>
> >> I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it
> >> reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the
> >> network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
> >>
> >> The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to
> >> play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
> >>
> >> There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I
> >> don't know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the
> >> moment. I looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and
> >> it is writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and
> >> it will take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time
> >> for the offline defrag about 48 hours.
> >>
> >> When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the
> >> incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail
> >> etcetcetc to strip the required information in the store.
> >>
> >> After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do
> >> another offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail
> >> is back.
> >>
> >> My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough
> >> mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good
> >> is the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
> >>
> >> I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad.
> >> Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
> >>
> >> I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a
> >> while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the
> >> online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
> >>
> >> I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag
> >> with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours
> >> and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the
> >> bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The
> >> server is a dell poweredge 2200).
> >>
> >> I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would
> >> appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of
> >> mitigating the situation.
> >>
> >> Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above ..
> >> whether they are sensible or not...
> >>
> >> Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole
> >> strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and
> >> getting my users back up and working by Monday.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for any advice.
> >>
> >> Yours
> >>
> >> An admin having a peaceful week !
> >>
> >>
> >


0
6/12/2004 10:38:30 PM
Hi,

Al Mulnick wrote:
> No, I think you pretty much have it now.  Online maintenance is used to
> recover database space (tables and indexes and such).  Offline defrag is to
> recover physical disk space.
> 
> I think if you clear out a bunch of items in your store.  I mean a serious
> amount percentage-wise.  For example, if you delete 25% of your items, then
> it is *often* recommended to run an off-line defrag.  That's because it's
> assumed that you would want to recover the space (that's why you deleted or
> moved all of that data, right?) and more importantly to you, because the
> online defrag will take longer to complete it's initial pass after a large
> removal of data has occurred.  What I'm getting at is that you may want to
> take that into account.  The next thing you'll see after removing large
> quantities of data is that you'll get event log entries stating that the
> online defrag ended at <insert configured time to end online defrag> which
> may raise concern with you if you're not expecting it.  Now that you are,
> realize that the system will start to defrag (online) and at the end of the
> configured time, stop and then start again at the next interval where it
> left off.  It's possible that you will never get to complete an online
> defrag in your case depending on many many other factors.
> 
> I would suggest that you configure your server's online maintenance window
> for every available minute after service hours.  Do not configure to occur
> during other tasks (i.e. backups, virus scans, etc), but otherwise, have it
> run for as long as you can each night until it catches back up.
> 
> Until you get a chance to upgrade, you'll likely have some time while the
> database allows reuse of the white space vs. expanding the file to the 16gb
> limit.  That amount of time will totally depend on the amount of traffic,
> the size of the traffic, and the amount of data your users leave in there.
> You'll have that long before this happens again.


Thank you .. that is nice and clear ...

I am about to go off and catch the train and get on with it .. but I 
have one last question... you know how the questions arise at night and 
then bug you when you are trying to sleep !

A full online backup triggers a clear out of the transaction logs as I 
understand it.

My question is ... does the trigger of a complete online backup make any 
difference to the recoverable whitespace in my priv.edb file or does it 
only affect the transaction log files ?

I am trying to work out the sequence I should do things.

- Set retention to 0
- Clear out mail
- Start online maintenance
- Online backup
- Reopen the system for incoing/outgoing mail

I appreciate that the online maintenance shouldn't overlap the backup. 
Something that I have learned over this weekend and which I am fairly 
sure is not set correctly on our machine.

A backup of the priv.edb last Thursday when this started took about 2 
1/2 hours so I guess a full online backup will be similar. (we use 
ArcServe).

I suspect the sequence depends on where I want to recover things from if 
they go wrong.

Are there any technical issues associated with the sequence that mean 
that the online defrag will work well or worse depending on the online 
backup.

This is probably the last post I will be able to make before doing the 
work .. I am going into the office and can't post to the newsgroups 
directly from there ..

Thank you to both of you for your help .. it has been invaluable ..

Cheers








> 
> 
> 
> 
> Al
> 
> 
> 
> "Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
> news:40cb6ec7$0$4591$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>Kirill S. Palagin wrote:
>>
>>>Offline defrag with temp file on the network is supposed to be long
>>>because of all round-trips over the plumbing. OTOH, local offline defrag
>>> should be much faster.
>>
>>Yep .. I expected that would be the case .. I just felt nervous because
>>the defragment part of the offline backup took about 20 hours and it now
>>looks like the copy back took 28 hours.
>>
>>
>>>Before offline defrag can shrink database online defrag (aka InfoStore
>>>maintenance) has to run, so you need to let it run (set InfoStore
>>>maintenance schedule to always).
>>
>>ok thanks... I believe the online defrag has been set to always run..
>>
>>
>>>Also make sure deleted items retention
>>>is set to 0 before you start deleting everything.
>>
>>Ah, thanks .. that's a useful tip ! I will defintely set that
>>
>>
>>>P.S. Online defrag after SP2 is quite good at consolidating white space.
>>
>>ok, that's good  .. I am not sure which SP it is running at the moment
>>.. I will check that .. I believe it is SP4
>>
>>>P.P.S. your times for offline defrag over the LAN look a bit high (by a
>>>factor of 2 or 3).
>>
>>The offline defrag has just completed and took 176009.891 seconds which
>>is just under 49 hours.
>>
>> From your other posting you mentioned that I might be confused about
>>the difference betwen online and offline defragment. I understand the
>>basic differences, the question was more geared towards whether Exchange
>>would successfully use the whitespace generated by an online defrag or
>>whether I absolutely had to perform an offline defrag to use it.
>>
>>It sounds from the advice I am getting here that the Exchange should use
>>the white space generated without requiring the offline defrag which
>>means I have a better chance of getting things up and running again
>>tomorrow.
>>
>>
>>Thanks for all the advice .. it helps to have reassurance and hints from
>>people who have been through it...
>>
>>
>>Thanks...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Help wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange
>>>>5.5.
>>>>
>>>>We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
>>>>
>>>>Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store.
>>>>There were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with
>>>>after the recovery.
>>>>
>>>>Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline
>>>>deframentation using eseutil.
>>>>
>>>>As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I
>>>>had to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
>>>>
>>>>I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it
>>>>reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the
>>>>network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
>>>>
>>>>The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to
>>>>play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
>>>>
>>>>There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I
>>>>don't know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the
>>>>moment. I looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and
>>>>it is writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and
>>>>it will take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time
>>>>for the offline defrag about 48 hours.
>>>>
>>>>When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the
>>>>incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail
>>>>etcetcetc to strip the required information in the store.
>>>>
>>>>After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do
>>>>another offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail
>>>>is back.
>>>>
>>>>My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough
>>>>mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good
>>>>is the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
>>>>
>>>>I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad.
>>>>Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
>>>>
>>>>I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a
>>>>while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the
>>>>online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
>>>>
>>>>I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag
>>>>with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours
>>>>and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the
>>>>bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The
>>>>server is a dell poweredge 2200).
>>>>
>>>>I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would
>>>>appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of
>>>>mitigating the situation.
>>>>
>>>>Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above ..
>>>>whether they are sensible or not...
>>>>
>>>>Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole
>>>>strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and
>>>>getting my users back up and working by Monday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for any advice.
>>>>
>>>>Yours
>>>>
>>>>An admin having a peaceful week !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
0
6/13/2004 7:13:06 AM
I think the only reason I'd want the backup first is to get a known working
copy to tape prior to reuse.  It's the least amount of time more than
anything else and it would be more efficient to finish that prior to the
online maintenance (since you need more time for that).  It would also
verify that your database is consistent prior to doing the next step
(checking occurs during backup). Otherwise, no technical issue that I can
think of off the top of my head.

Al
"Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
news:40cbfe66$0$4593$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> Hi,
>
> Al Mulnick wrote:
> > No, I think you pretty much have it now.  Online maintenance is used to
> > recover database space (tables and indexes and such).  Offline defrag is
to
> > recover physical disk space.
> >
> > I think if you clear out a bunch of items in your store.  I mean a
serious
> > amount percentage-wise.  For example, if you delete 25% of your items,
then
> > it is *often* recommended to run an off-line defrag.  That's because
it's
> > assumed that you would want to recover the space (that's why you deleted
or
> > moved all of that data, right?) and more importantly to you, because the
> > online defrag will take longer to complete it's initial pass after a
large
> > removal of data has occurred.  What I'm getting at is that you may want
to
> > take that into account.  The next thing you'll see after removing large
> > quantities of data is that you'll get event log entries stating that the
> > online defrag ended at <insert configured time to end online defrag>
which
> > may raise concern with you if you're not expecting it.  Now that you
are,
> > realize that the system will start to defrag (online) and at the end of
the
> > configured time, stop and then start again at the next interval where it
> > left off.  It's possible that you will never get to complete an online
> > defrag in your case depending on many many other factors.
> >
> > I would suggest that you configure your server's online maintenance
window
> > for every available minute after service hours.  Do not configure to
occur
> > during other tasks (i.e. backups, virus scans, etc), but otherwise, have
it
> > run for as long as you can each night until it catches back up.
> >
> > Until you get a chance to upgrade, you'll likely have some time while
the
> > database allows reuse of the white space vs. expanding the file to the
16gb
> > limit.  That amount of time will totally depend on the amount of
traffic,
> > the size of the traffic, and the amount of data your users leave in
there.
> > You'll have that long before this happens again.
>
>
> Thank you .. that is nice and clear ...
>
> I am about to go off and catch the train and get on with it .. but I
> have one last question... you know how the questions arise at night and
> then bug you when you are trying to sleep !
>
> A full online backup triggers a clear out of the transaction logs as I
> understand it.
>
> My question is ... does the trigger of a complete online backup make any
> difference to the recoverable whitespace in my priv.edb file or does it
> only affect the transaction log files ?
>
> I am trying to work out the sequence I should do things.
>
> - Set retention to 0
> - Clear out mail
> - Start online maintenance
> - Online backup
> - Reopen the system for incoing/outgoing mail
>
> I appreciate that the online maintenance shouldn't overlap the backup.
> Something that I have learned over this weekend and which I am fairly
> sure is not set correctly on our machine.
>
> A backup of the priv.edb last Thursday when this started took about 2
> 1/2 hours so I guess a full online backup will be similar. (we use
> ArcServe).
>
> I suspect the sequence depends on where I want to recover things from if
> they go wrong.
>
> Are there any technical issues associated with the sequence that mean
> that the online defrag will work well or worse depending on the online
> backup.
>
> This is probably the last post I will be able to make before doing the
> work .. I am going into the office and can't post to the newsgroups
> directly from there ..
>
> Thank you to both of you for your help .. it has been invaluable ..
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Al
> >
> >
> >
> > "Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
> > news:40cb6ec7$0$4591$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Kirill S. Palagin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Offline defrag with temp file on the network is supposed to be long
> >>>because of all round-trips over the plumbing. OTOH, local offline
defrag
> >>> should be much faster.
> >>
> >>Yep .. I expected that would be the case .. I just felt nervous because
> >>the defragment part of the offline backup took about 20 hours and it now
> >>looks like the copy back took 28 hours.
> >>
> >>
> >>>Before offline defrag can shrink database online defrag (aka InfoStore
> >>>maintenance) has to run, so you need to let it run (set InfoStore
> >>>maintenance schedule to always).
> >>
> >>ok thanks... I believe the online defrag has been set to always run..
> >>
> >>
> >>>Also make sure deleted items retention
> >>>is set to 0 before you start deleting everything.
> >>
> >>Ah, thanks .. that's a useful tip ! I will defintely set that
> >>
> >>
> >>>P.S. Online defrag after SP2 is quite good at consolidating white
space.
> >>
> >>ok, that's good  .. I am not sure which SP it is running at the moment
> >>.. I will check that .. I believe it is SP4
> >>
> >>>P.P.S. your times for offline defrag over the LAN look a bit high (by a
> >>>factor of 2 or 3).
> >>
> >>The offline defrag has just completed and took 176009.891 seconds which
> >>is just under 49 hours.
> >>
> >> From your other posting you mentioned that I might be confused about
> >>the difference betwen online and offline defragment. I understand the
> >>basic differences, the question was more geared towards whether Exchange
> >>would successfully use the whitespace generated by an online defrag or
> >>whether I absolutely had to perform an offline defrag to use it.
> >>
> >>It sounds from the advice I am getting here that the Exchange should use
> >>the white space generated without requiring the offline defrag which
> >>means I have a better chance of getting things up and running again
> >>tomorrow.
> >>
> >>
> >>Thanks for all the advice .. it helps to have reassurance and hints from
> >>people who have been through it...
> >>
> >>
> >>Thanks...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Help wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange
> >>>>5.5.
> >>>>
> >>>>We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
> >>>>
> >>>>Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store.
> >>>>There were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with
> >>>>after the recovery.
> >>>>
> >>>>Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline
> >>>>deframentation using eseutil.
> >>>>
> >>>>As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I
> >>>>had to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
> >>>>
> >>>>I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it
> >>>>reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the
> >>>>network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
> >>>>
> >>>>The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to
> >>>>play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
> >>>>
> >>>>There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I
> >>>>don't know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the
> >>>>moment. I looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and
> >>>>it is writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and
> >>>>it will take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time
> >>>>for the offline defrag about 48 hours.
> >>>>
> >>>>When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the
> >>>>incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail
> >>>>etcetcetc to strip the required information in the store.
> >>>>
> >>>>After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do
> >>>>another offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail
> >>>>is back.
> >>>>
> >>>>My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough
> >>>>mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good
> >>>>is the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
> >>>>
> >>>>I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad.
> >>>>Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
> >>>>
> >>>>I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a
> >>>>while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the
> >>>>online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
> >>>>
> >>>>I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag
> >>>>with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours
> >>>>and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the
> >>>>bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The
> >>>>server is a dell poweredge 2200).
> >>>>
> >>>>I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would
> >>>>appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of
> >>>>mitigating the situation.
> >>>>
> >>>>Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above ..
> >>>>whether they are sensible or not...
> >>>>
> >>>>Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole
> >>>>strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and
> >>>>getting my users back up and working by Monday.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks for any advice.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yours
> >>>>
> >>>>An admin having a peaceful week !
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >
> >


0
6/13/2004 4:51:46 PM
Hi,

Kirill S. Palagin wrote:

> It seems that you are not exactly clear on offline/online defrag and 
> their purpose.
> You do offline derfag with ESEUTIL by stopping InfoStore (which makes it 
> unavailable to users).
> Online defrag (aka IS maintenance) is happening automagically, on set 
> schedule, and only when InfoStore is running. Users are not affected 
> (except performance is slightly degraded. See
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;159306
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;159196

Thanks for those two references, they certainly corrected a 
misunderstanding. The background cleanup process rather than the IS 
Maintenance cleans up and reclaims space in the private store. That 
saved me running an online defrag just to reclaim the private 
information store whitespace.

The server is now up and running and the background cleanup seemed to do 
its job ok  in reclaiming space. We now have about 3GB free and will 
hopefully free up a lot more when the rest of the users are told to 
clear up their inboxes today.

Thank you very much for your help

Cheers





> 
> 
> Help wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for the response...
>>
>> Al Mulnick wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, the online defrag is good.  However, in your case I hardly 
>>> think
>>> it's worth it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am sure I understand why it isn't worth doing an online defrag if it 
>> is good. I meant I would do an online defrag after removing as much as 
>> possible from the mailboxes.
>>
>>>  You didn't follow all of the advice which mentions that the
>>> database has x amount of free space after online defrag etc.  If you had
>>> seen that part, it would have indicated that off-line defrag wouldn't 
>>> have
>>> bought you much in the way of space recovery.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, I am sure you are right. Looking after this system is fairly new 
>> to me ...  I have been checking the event logs regularly and so no 
>> warnings about the approaching 16GB limit tho. I did see some online 
>> defrag messages saying there was x amount of free space.
>> When the problem occurred, I found the relevant ms article and 
>> followed it. Once it had started, I have read around a lot more, and 
>> realised that a eseutil /d would also have shown me how much I would 
>> have recovered.
>>
>>>
>>> It's likely that after you remove the data from the store, you'll 
>>> have some
>>> time before that space gets reused.  That's what Exchange does. It 
>>> reuses
>>> the space where data used to be (called white space).  What happens 
>>> is that
>>> the data blob stays the same size, but won't grow until the store 
>>> needs the
>>> room.  It will first use the white space and then expand the store.
>>>
>>> What I'm getting at, is that due to the time and risk of off-line 
>>> defrag in
>>> your situation, consider cleaning out the items as you say (mailbox
>>> manager?), and buying yourself some time to get another solution in 
>>> place.
>>
>>
>>
>> ok, from your comment earlier in the post then, you mean that using 
>> online defrag isn't worth it in the long term but it is a good short 
>> term/immediate solution ?
>>
>>> Consider a monitoring solution as well if this is the same path you head
>>> down later.  Defrag and database work is time consuming and may end up
>>> costing more than buying Enterprise server version or trying to 
>>> convert to
>>> some other mailer.
>>
>>
>>
>> I spent some time yesterday on the phone trying to get a copy of 
>> Enterprise to run the setup on it, but our supplier didin't have and 
>> couldn't get a copy of Exchange 5.5 enterprise ... the suggestion was 
>> to move to Enterprise 2000 which makes some sense, but it didn't sound 
>> like the sensible  probably not the thing to do this weekend as an 
>> emergency measure.
>>
>> As for the monitoring, I will adjust it and set up some accordingly.. 
>> once burnt twice shy. Logging seemed to be set to none when I was 
>> looking at it before starting the defrag.
>>
>>
>> Again, just to confirm the gist of your response. You are saying that 
>> the route I am going through of deleting unused/unwanted info and then 
>> running an online defrag should buy me time ?
>>
>> Thanks for the advice, its appreciated..
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Al
>>>
>>>
>>> "Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
>>> news:40caecd9$0$4588$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for 
>>>> Exchange 5.5.
>>>>
>>>> We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
>>>>
>>>> Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store. 
>>>> There
>>>> were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with after the
>>>> recovery.
>>>>
>>>> Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline
>>>> deframentation using eseutil.
>>>>
>>>> As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I 
>>>> had
>>>> to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
>>>>
>>>> I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it
>>>> reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the
>>>> network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
>>>>
>>>> The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to
>>>> play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
>>>>
>>>> There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I 
>>>> don't
>>>> know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the moment. I
>>>> looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and it is
>>>> writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and it will
>>>> take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time for the
>>>> offline defrag about 48 hours.
>>>>
>>>> When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the
>>>> incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail etcetcetc
>>>> to strip the required information in the store.
>>>>
>>>> After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do 
>>>> another
>>>> offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail is back.
>>>>
>>>> My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough
>>>> mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good is
>>>> the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
>>>>
>>>> I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad.
>>>> Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
>>>>
>>>> I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a
>>>> while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the
>>>> online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
>>>>
>>>> I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag
>>>> with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours
>>>> and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the
>>>> bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The
>>>> server is a dell poweredge 2200).
>>>>
>>>> I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would
>>>> appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of
>>>> mitigating the situation.
>>>>
>>>> Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above ..
>>>> whether they are sensible or not...
>>>>
>>>> Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole
>>>> strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and
>>>> getting my users back up and working by Monday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any advice.
>>>>
>>>> Yours
>>>>
>>>> An admin having a peaceful week !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> 
0
6/14/2004 9:09:57 AM
Hi Al,

Al Mulnick wrote:

> I think the only reason I'd want the backup first is to get a known working
> copy to tape prior to reuse.  It's the least amount of time more than
> anything else and it would be more efficient to finish that prior to the
> online maintenance (since you need more time for that).  It would also
> verify that your database is consistent prior to doing the next step
> (checking occurs during backup). Otherwise, no technical issue that I can
> think of off the top of my head.


Thanks .. the process we followed was to start without incoming/outgoing 
mail, tidy up lots of space (checking the background cleanup was 
reclaiming space), restart incoming and outgoing mail and monitor for a 
while. The I did a full online backup. The Maintenance ran overnight and 
seemed to be successful.

It all seems to have worked ok. I have a problem now that mail is slow 
coming into and out of the exchange server, but the message headers I 
receive are showing that that is a delay at our ISP. Possibly due to 
queued up messages.

Thanks very much for your help. Now I am going to be chasing the 
events/alerts methods for monitoring mail use. Is there a good article 
somewhere on monitoring usage of Exchange 5.5 ?


I appreciate all the help from this newsgroup ... thanks




> 
> Al
> "Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
> news:40cbfe66$0$4593$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>Al Mulnick wrote:
>>
>>>No, I think you pretty much have it now.  Online maintenance is used to
>>>recover database space (tables and indexes and such).  Offline defrag is
> 
> to
> 
>>>recover physical disk space.
>>>
>>>I think if you clear out a bunch of items in your store.  I mean a
> 
> serious
> 
>>>amount percentage-wise.  For example, if you delete 25% of your items,
> 
> then
> 
>>>it is *often* recommended to run an off-line defrag.  That's because
> 
> it's
> 
>>>assumed that you would want to recover the space (that's why you deleted
> 
> or
> 
>>>moved all of that data, right?) and more importantly to you, because the
>>>online defrag will take longer to complete it's initial pass after a
> 
> large
> 
>>>removal of data has occurred.  What I'm getting at is that you may want
> 
> to
> 
>>>take that into account.  The next thing you'll see after removing large
>>>quantities of data is that you'll get event log entries stating that the
>>>online defrag ended at <insert configured time to end online defrag>
> 
> which
> 
>>>may raise concern with you if you're not expecting it.  Now that you
> 
> are,
> 
>>>realize that the system will start to defrag (online) and at the end of
> 
> the
> 
>>>configured time, stop and then start again at the next interval where it
>>>left off.  It's possible that you will never get to complete an online
>>>defrag in your case depending on many many other factors.
>>>
>>>I would suggest that you configure your server's online maintenance
> 
> window
> 
>>>for every available minute after service hours.  Do not configure to
> 
> occur
> 
>>>during other tasks (i.e. backups, virus scans, etc), but otherwise, have
> 
> it
> 
>>>run for as long as you can each night until it catches back up.
>>>
>>>Until you get a chance to upgrade, you'll likely have some time while
> 
> the
> 
>>>database allows reuse of the white space vs. expanding the file to the
> 
> 16gb
> 
>>>limit.  That amount of time will totally depend on the amount of
> 
> traffic,
> 
>>>the size of the traffic, and the amount of data your users leave in
> 
> there.
> 
>>>You'll have that long before this happens again.
>>
>>
>>Thank you .. that is nice and clear ...
>>
>>I am about to go off and catch the train and get on with it .. but I
>>have one last question... you know how the questions arise at night and
>>then bug you when you are trying to sleep !
>>
>>A full online backup triggers a clear out of the transaction logs as I
>>understand it.
>>
>>My question is ... does the trigger of a complete online backup make any
>>difference to the recoverable whitespace in my priv.edb file or does it
>>only affect the transaction log files ?
>>
>>I am trying to work out the sequence I should do things.
>>
>>- Set retention to 0
>>- Clear out mail
>>- Start online maintenance
>>- Online backup
>>- Reopen the system for incoing/outgoing mail
>>
>>I appreciate that the online maintenance shouldn't overlap the backup.
>>Something that I have learned over this weekend and which I am fairly
>>sure is not set correctly on our machine.
>>
>>A backup of the priv.edb last Thursday when this started took about 2
>>1/2 hours so I guess a full online backup will be similar. (we use
>>ArcServe).
>>
>>I suspect the sequence depends on where I want to recover things from if
>>they go wrong.
>>
>>Are there any technical issues associated with the sequence that mean
>>that the online defrag will work well or worse depending on the online
>>backup.
>>
>>This is probably the last post I will be able to make before doing the
>>work .. I am going into the office and can't post to the newsgroups
>>directly from there ..
>>
>>Thank you to both of you for your help .. it has been invaluable ..
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Al
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Help" <anonym@whoknowswhere.osh> wrote in message
>>>news:40cb6ec7$0$4591$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>Kirill S. Palagin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Offline defrag with temp file on the network is supposed to be long
>>>>>because of all round-trips over the plumbing. OTOH, local offline
> 
> defrag
> 
>>>>>should be much faster.
>>>>
>>>>Yep .. I expected that would be the case .. I just felt nervous because
>>>>the defragment part of the offline backup took about 20 hours and it now
>>>>looks like the copy back took 28 hours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Before offline defrag can shrink database online defrag (aka InfoStore
>>>>>maintenance) has to run, so you need to let it run (set InfoStore
>>>>>maintenance schedule to always).
>>>>
>>>>ok thanks... I believe the online defrag has been set to always run..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Also make sure deleted items retention
>>>>>is set to 0 before you start deleting everything.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, thanks .. that's a useful tip ! I will defintely set that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>P.S. Online defrag after SP2 is quite good at consolidating white
> 
> space.
> 
>>>>ok, that's good  .. I am not sure which SP it is running at the moment
>>>>.. I will check that .. I believe it is SP4
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>P.P.S. your times for offline defrag over the LAN look a bit high (by a
>>>>>factor of 2 or 3).
>>>>
>>>>The offline defrag has just completed and took 176009.891 seconds which
>>>>is just under 49 hours.
>>>>
>>>>From your other posting you mentioned that I might be confused about
>>>>the difference betwen online and offline defragment. I understand the
>>>>basic differences, the question was more geared towards whether Exchange
>>>>would successfully use the whitespace generated by an online defrag or
>>>>whether I absolutely had to perform an offline defrag to use it.
>>>>
>>>>It sounds from the advice I am getting here that the Exchange should use
>>>>the white space generated without requiring the offline defrag which
>>>>means I have a better chance of getting things up and running again
>>>>tomorrow.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for all the advice .. it helps to have reassurance and hints from
>>>>people who have been through it...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Help wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request for Exchange
>>>>>>5.5.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an Win2000 server.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private information store.
>>>>>>There were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal with
>>>>>>after the recovery.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do an offline
>>>>>>deframentation using eseutil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is only 32GB) I
>>>>>>had to use a network drive to store the temporarily created edb file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 4pm Friday it
>>>>>>reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file back from the
>>>>>>network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have hardly any space to
>>>>>>play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me much.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no percent complete on the copy of the file back and so I
>>>>>>don't know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at the
>>>>>>moment. I looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil and
>>>>>>it is writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 15.7GB and
>>>>>>it will take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a time
>>>>>>for the offline defrag about 48 hours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but without the
>>>>>>incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent mail
>>>>>>etcetcetc to strip the required information in the store.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would need to do
>>>>>>another offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before mail
>>>>>>is back.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I clear out enough
>>>>>>mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than now, how good
>>>>>>is the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying it is bad.
>>>>>>Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline defrag for a
>>>>>>while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 200MB, that the
>>>>>>online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the offline defrag
>>>>>>with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag took 20 hours
>>>>>>and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which implies that the
>>>>>>bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the network time. (The
>>>>>>server is a dell poweredge 2200).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but I would
>>>>>>appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any ways of
>>>>>>mitigating the situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations above ..
>>>>>>whether they are sensible or not...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be revisiting the whole
>>>>>>strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the recovery and
>>>>>>getting my users back up and working by Monday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks for any advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yours
>>>>>>
>>>>>>An admin having a peaceful week !
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> 
> 
0
6/14/2004 9:14:30 AM
Upgrade to Exchange 5.5 Enterprise.  It will fix it.  We 
did all the things Microsoft said to do also, but in the 
end it was just a simple upgrade that saved us a lot of 
time.
>-----Original Message-----
>Hi,
>
>I hope this is a good newsgroup to put an advice request 
for Exchange 5.5.
>
>We are running Exchange 5.5 Standard edition on an 
Win2000 server.
>
>Last week it hit the 16GB limit for the private 
information store. There 
>were not warning messages but that's something I'll deal 
with after the 
>recovery.
>
>Following the advice on microsoft site, I decided to do 
an offline 
>deframentation using eseutil.
>
>As I don't have a spare 18GB on the server (the disk is 
only 32GB) I had 
>to use a network drive to store the temporarily created 
edb file.
>
>I started eseutil defrag at about 8pm on Thursday and at 
4pm Friday it 
>reached the 100% defrag and started to copy the file 
back from the 
>network drive. So that was about 20hours for the defrag.
>
>The new size of the file is about 15.7GB so I have 
hardly any space to 
>play with and it looks like the defrag hasn't bought me 
much.
>
>There is no percent complete on the copy of the file 
back and so I don't 
>know how long it will take to copy. It is underway at 
the moment. I 
>looked at the performance stats for the process eseutil 
and it is 
>writing about 140k bytes/second. Scaling that up to 
15.7GB and it will 
>take about 33 hours to complete the copy. That makes a 
time for the 
>offline defrag about 48 hours.
>
>When that completes, I plan to start exchange IM but 
without the 
>incoming mail started and violently remove old mail/sent 
mail etcetcetc 
>to strip the required information in the store.
>
>After that, to actually reduce the file size, I would 
need to do another 
>offline defrag .. taking me to the end of Tuesday before 
mail is back.
>
>My question is, how good is the online defrag ? If I 
clear out enough 
>mail so that the mail boxes are, say, 6GB smaller than 
now, how good is 
>the online defrag at freeing up that space ?
>
>I have seen comments saying it is good and some saying 
it is bad. 
>Exchange 5.5 ssems to have mixed comments.
>
>I am assuming that, because there hadn't been an offline 
defrag for a 
>while, and the offline defrag is only pulling back 
200MB, that the 
>online defrag must have been doing a reasonable job.
>
>I have the options of adding a local disk and doing the 
offline defrag 
>with that, but I am a bit nervous that the actual defrag 
took 20 hours 
>and the copy back looks like taking 32 hours which 
implies that the 
>bottleneck is on my exchange server rather than the 
network time. (The 
>server is a dell poweredge 2200).
>
>I think I am going to have to risk the online defrag but 
I would 
>appreciate advice and suggestions from anyone .. and any 
ways of 
>mitigating the situation.
>
>Also any advice as to my assumptions in the calculations 
above .. 
>whether they are sensible or not...
>
>Once this exciting few days is over, I shall be 
revisiting the whole 
>strategy ... but for the moment, I need to think of the 
recovery and 
>getting my users back up and working by Monday.
>
>
>Thanks for any advice.
>
>Yours
>
>An admin having a peaceful week !
>
>
>.
>
0
anonymous (74722)
6/22/2004 7:46:22 PM
Or add another drive and move the databases and log files. Probably a *LOT*
cheaper...

-- 
Regards,
Hank Arnold

"Jeff" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2032e01c45891$984bc060$a001280a@phx.gbl...
> Upgrade to Exchange 5.5 Enterprise.  It will fix it.  We
> did all the things Microsoft said to do also, but in the
> end it was just a simple upgrade that saved us a lot of
> time.


0
rasilon1 (689)
6/23/2004 8:30:17 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Feature Requests
Unmatching Transactions - I sometimes find quite a few transactions that need to be un-matched. In the account register view, I select the transaction and click un-match. This takes several minutes to run for each transaction (I have archived off several years worth of data and the process should be quicker). I would like to be able to select multiple transactions that need to be un-matched, right-click and be able to un-match them all. Payee, Category, etc - views - I would like to be able to right-click on the graphs and have the option of setting the graph range manualy. Importin...

Outlook 2003
Here's the problem: Every tiem I open Outlook it displays an error message that my Exchange server is unavailable. What I know: I know the Exchange server is up & running without any problems. The desktop computer is on the network and can browse and ping different devices. DNS is resolving names properly. Does anyone know what I can do to fix this? ...

Exchange 5.5 Store.exe Event ID 4097
The following Dr Watson error has occurred 3 times over the last 3 weeks - I cannot determine any pattern or trend: The application, store.exe, generated an application error The error occurred on 04/30/2004 @ 13:26:29.025 The exception generated was c0000005 at address 0042466B (<nosymbols>) ========================================================== Any assistance will be appreciated. I have the "Recovey Tab" set to restart on all failures, and it has been restarting OK... ======================================================== Here is the entire entry from the drWts...

formal cell
Can I format a column of zip codes listed 98221-9879 to read 98221? Howeth? Susan, =left(text, number of characters) e.g., =left(b1, 5) HTH Regards, Kevin "Susan" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:054d01c39daa$5c87a320$a401280a@phx.gbl... > Can I format a column of zip codes listed 98221-9879 to > read 98221? > Howeth? don't believe that formatting can do this (probably wrong <<vbg>>) anyway in an adjacent cell enter Left(a1,5) and copy down where a1 is your 98221-9879 HTH "Susan" <anonymous@discussion...

CCSRCH tool on Exchange Mailboxes
CCSRCH tool on Exchange Mailboxes. This tool is suppose to go though files to see if there is credit card information in mailboxes. Has anyone had to run a tool like this? ...

RE: Mailbox Access
I have created a generic user account and mailbox. I have added users to this mailbox. These users are able to open up the mailbox in outlook. I have disabled the primary user account of the mailbox. Now the users are not able to access the mailbox. Does the primary user account have to enabled for users to be able to access the mailbox? Yep thats correct. Regards -- Ben Hoffman MCP (Win2000 Pro/Server & Exchange 2003 Admin) http://www.ExchangeIS.com "wbmcse" <wbmcse@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:349A8A84-3049-4212-9B92-B02542749D8E@microsoft.co...

Help with Exchange 5.5 Queue problem
Okay, first off, I inherited this Exchange server. It has been over 5 years since I last touched one of these. Client noticed that no e-mails were being sent out. I checked the IMC queues and they were packed full of email going to .tw, .fr, .de, etc. Disconnected the ethernet cable from the back of the box. Ran the much needed virus check and got rid of 225 Netsky and Beagle viruses. Reran a few times just to be on the safe side - server is clean (latest norton updates). And made sure that relaying was also turned off - just for fun. Cleaned out the queues (deleted the contents of the ...

Creating users with ADC / Exchange 5.5 #2
I installed the ADC on my DC and created all connection agreements. Now I can go into ADUC and create new users, but I don't see a mailbox being created for a user. Should that happen? If so, how long should it take? I tried sending an email to the user I created and the mailbox isn't found. Also, there are no Exchange tabs for the users name. ...

Business Portal 2.5 #3
Receive error: The Business Portal data in the database you selected is not compatible with this version of the Business Portal. You must select a different database before continuing Hi What version of Great Plains are you using? -- Regards James[MVP] Visit MBS Blog Central http://mbscentral.blogs.com "thebigo9" <thebigo9@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:491CA957-2C6C-4440-BFD6-CACE94C06584@microsoft.com... > Receive error: The Business Portal data in the database you selected is > not > compatible with this version of the Business Portal. Yo...

French CAL on English Exchange?
Does any one know if it is possible to install French or Spanish CAL's on an English exchange server? Thank you ...

slow outlook after changed adress of exchange server
after we have migrated accounts from one to another mailserver the outlook2000 clients (after changing te settings) are very slow and sometimes they even hang. I supose there are some cached settings....but can's find them. Who can helpme out. P.S. deleting the profile and making a new one works, but there must be another way.... ...

Public Folder Nightmare-Exchange 2003 (Long)
I sure hope some one can help with this.. Part one of my issue I recently added a new Exchange 2003 server to our Ex2k native eniviroment. The Public folder hierarchy would not replicate properly until I sent the hierarchy manually through the ESM. Then, I tried to replicate a folder from the old Ex2k server. The folder showed up immediately on the 2k3 server in 'Public Folder Instances' but with 0 items and 0kb. No data would ever replicate; although new items being posted would go there fine. I built a test lab to try and replicate this behavior. I found that replication work...

Automatic Cell Re-sizing
I have created a spreadsheet that is to be completed by several people. Some of the cells in the spreadsheet are protected appart rom the ones to be completed by the users. On those cells 'Wrap Text' is enabled, is it possible to make those cells re-size automatically when they type to much text to fit in the viewable area ? Any help would be much appreciated.... Thanks Tappie If you're saying that you have unlocked cells with Wrap Text set then, as long as they are not merged cells and you haven't manually adjusted the cell's row height, their row heights sh...

Moving Mailboxes from Exchange 2000 to 2003
Which is better to use, if any, to move mailboxes; admin tools (ADUC) for windows 2000 or the ADUC for windows 2003 when moving mailboxes from exchange 2000 to 2003? Just curious if they is any differance. I've noticed there are more events logged while moving under the 2003 version in my test enviorment which I like. Thanks John When i've done migrations i've always used the 2k3 version. Figured since that's where i was going i might as well use it. Functionally i don't think there is much difference other than perhaps the logging you pointed out. "John&quo...

Exchange 5.5: License problem stopping outgoing mail for new users. (urgent)
Hi, We have an Exchange 5.5 mailserver on 2000Server, and a 2003 server as main server, both are in the Active Dir and the mailserver has been DCPromo:ed. Problem: I activated the licensing service on the servers a while ago, and since then the last added user, and any user I add, cannot send mail externally. Internal mail sends fine, but anything external comes back as "Message delivery failed due to a limitation in the system". (translated from Swedish) When I look at the licenses for Exchange, at the 2003- server, I see 116 CALs. We use about 50 (per seat). When I look a...

Exchange 2000 Migration
We're looking to migrate the mailboxes and public folder data from an Exchange 2000 Server to a new installation of Exchange 2003. The current Exchange server has been running for several years, and we'd like to start fresh. Would performing an upgrade to the 2000 server then adding another 2003 server be the best course, or is there a better way to move the mailboxes over? I haven't seen much info on anything but a straight upgrade from 2000 to 2003... Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated. Thank you. Michael "Michael LaFayette" <lafayette@c...

Outlook 2K3, 1 SMTP acct, 1 Exchange Acct
So, I would like to configure outlook on my home pc to check my personal SMTP account as well as my work Exchange account. I can set them up in tandum fine but they all get dumped to the same inbox, and what's worse it it's not leaving my work emails on the exhange server as I would like. I could setup a filter based on To: to put emails into different folders but that doesn't really work across the board (BCC:, etc.). I would have thought the default behavior would be to have two Inbox folders under the different "Mailbox" expandable navigation menus in Outlook and p...

Exchange 2007 problem replying or forwarding certain emails through OWA
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CB0D66.C0DA2C20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a weird one, hoping for some guidance. I have a strictly OWA user reporting issues trying to forward/reply = certain emails that are in his Sent Items folder. I'm able to duplicate = the issue here from a completely different PC. The vast majority of = emails seem fine, but when replying/forwarding some of the emails OWA = triggers an error. All emails that I can find to trig...

Can't find other users on exchange server to share calendar
Version: 2008 Operating System: Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard) Email Client: Exchange I'm trying to set permissions to share my calendar with other users (both mac and PC) in my Entourage Calendar. When I click on &quot;Add User&quot; and enter the email address of the person with whom I want to share, I get a message saying, <br><br>&quot;no matches for your search are found.&quot; <br><br>When I select the ADVANCED Tab and enter the users information there, I get a pop-up window saying, <br><br>&quot;Entourage cannot modify perm...

Multiuser Exchange Mailbox using Outlook 2000
I work for a company that needs to repond to customer emails. We have several people who do this and we need to quality check each email before it is actually sent out. We use a community mailbox for our customer emails and each user has access to it through our Exchange Server in addition to their own mailbox. One of the reps would reply to the message and save it. They would then move the email from his/her drafts folder to the QC folder in the community mailbox. Our problem was that a good portion of the time half the text would be missing from the email that was saved. Does anyone know how...

Bills screw up downloaded online transactions.
I am set up recurring bills in MS Money 2007 and I have all my accounts to automaticly download transaction via online service, MSSoney is not smart enough to match up the Payee and amount with the amount downloaded online. Am I missing something simple? Or is this how MS Money works? Becasue of this I end up with duplicate transactions in my account register and my cash flow graph is off. Any advice or help is appreciated. Thanks! For those downloaded items that you also want in your recurring bills, you could right-click on each item in the register and select "make recurring"....

Removing Exchange Attributes
Does anyone know of a script to automate the removal of exchange attributes for users? Thank You Paul You can use ADModify.net to do it in bulk..... http://www.gotdotnet.com/workspaces/workspace.aspx?id=f5cbbfa9-e46b-4a7a-8ed8-3e44523f32e2 "Paul Glickenhaus" <PaulGlickenhaus@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:FBF25773-4D0B-4DA7-803C-9335E4069319@microsoft.com... > Does anyone know of a script to automate the removal of exchange > attributes > for users? > > Thank You > > Paul ...

Add one more EDGE in existing Exchange + EDGE 2007
I need to add new EDGE in my Exchange + EDGE 2007 enviroment (Edge in LAN, I know that isn't a good choice, now I'm changing). I need to deploy new antispam, so I want to Install new EDGE and test it before I will go live, (this will be in DMZ) . Some one could give me some macro information about this topic? or some links? ...

econnect custom requester service
Hi! I just would like to ask if anyone of you has already made a custom requester service which points to the DYNAMICS database. I want to get the list of companies from the SY01500 table of the DYNAMICS database. I inserted a new row to the econnect_out_setup table both in the DYNAMICS and the TWO database (sample company database). Is this correct or should I only insert a new row to the DYNAMICS database and not to my company database? my connection string points to the dynamics database when i call the eConnect_Requester method. If anyone of you has already done this then I will very ...

Can you rename a Exchange server?
Can you change the name of an Exchange 2003 server? Reason for asking is I am migrating to a new Exchange 2003 server. After the migration I would like to take the old server offline and rename the new server. This will save me from having to touch each workstation to reconfigure the outlook client. Others will give a more complete answer (with links), but the short answer is that there shouldn't be any need to do that. Just set up the new server in the same Exchange org as the current one. Move the mailboxes. When a user connects for the first time, they will automatically be mo...