 JeffreyConnoisseur of leisurely thingsPremium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3 | reply to PToN
Re: Mailbox sizes... WTF...?!?!?! My Exchange space is limited to 150mb, everything else I have to store locally. It's quite frustrating. |
|
|
|
TSISeb
join:2013-02-18
Gatineau, QC | reply to PToN
Gmail is now working with google drive, if you want more space for attachements, or files you have to upgrade your google drive account.
p.s. why dont you cleanup your inbox or something. (who on earth needs to keep old emails up to 30gb...)
OR
-use dropbox.
-use pastebin.com (with a user account)
-use google drive
-use an external drive (500gb is about 40$)
-use a thumbdrive (take it where you want)
just my 2cents. |
|
 DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | reply to Nightfall
cool
we have about 4-5 Exch DB's on a single exch server
I haven't checked the sizes lately but I think colectivly they're over 500gb |
|
 NightfallMy Goal Is To Deny YoursPremium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Comcast
 ·Callcentric
 ·Site5.com
| reply to PToN
Our mailbox database was about 100gb in total for 200 users. We had 500mb-1gb sized mailboxes. We decided to move to Office 365 and what a treat. Each mailbox is now a 25gig limit and we won't hear from the users anytime soon when it comes to that. We don't have to worry about storage on site or running an exchange server.
Does it cost more compared to having your own exchange box? Yes, but its worth it. Our users love it. My network admin loves it as well. I highly recommend it.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1 | reply to PToN
At a small business I worked for, a big chunk of the mailboxes were consumed by scan-to-email attachments.
--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011
Rethink Billable.
|
|
| reply to Hall
said by Hall:Must be nice.... at my old job, a major corporation, they still restricted users to a 500mb mailbox. Anything above that, you have to store locally. Now, I'm not saying give every users a multi-gigabyte mailbox, but 500mb was painful to work with.
They did that at work a few years back and I just made my network drive my "local storage" to piss off the IT director. |
|
 MsradellP.E.Premium
join:2008-12-25
Louisville, KY
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to PToN
Having a huge collection of messages stored in a person's mailbox is just sloppy data retention. That storage is far from being secure as most other storage methods and most major corporations severely limit the size and length of time documents can be saved there.
I used to work for a major international Corp. and anything in our mailboxes was automatically deleted after 90 days! Maybe not the best system, but it certainly ensured that we kept them cleaned up. |
|
 DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2
 ·Covad Communicat..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to obeythelaw
said by obeythelaw:I don't host my own email server for my business but I have one with an unlimited IMAP box. Very cheap. Why not transition one to an unlimited mailbox?
As has been pointed out, there are many issues facing businesses larger than a handful of employees. If OP is in a regulated industry, or the organization has other evidentiary requirements, options and practices are constrained by them. Even though I'm a small business, I am required to conform to the rules governing my clients wrt email storage and data security practices. My business only uses Gmail's POP and SMTP facilities; I segregate my personal email so it is not commingled with the business correspondence. So, while your solution may work well for you, it won't scale to those of us with more advanced business requirements.
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following." |
|
| reply to PToN
I don't host my own email server for my business but I have one with an unlimited IMAP box. Very cheap. Why not transition one to an unlimited mailbox? |
|
 ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:18 | reply to Kilroy
Our mailbox size at work is 50MB with a 58MB hard cap. My calendar alone is like 12-15MB. That makes it difficult to manage.
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -MLK |
|
 KilroyPremium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
1 edit | reply to PToN
Our mailbox size is 100MB, yes MB. There are some users that have been increased to 250MB, but that's the limit. We have the ability to create PST files for long term storage and I've seen 12GB PST files.
While I find that 100MB is really too small for most people to function normally without having to create archives. I have archives for things like shippers, license proof, and things I know I'll need later in life. The rest of my mail is purged every other month. |
|
 HallPremium,MVM
join:2000-04-28
Dayton, OH
kudos:2 | reply to graniterock
said by graniterock: Basically someone decided that public disclosure / privacy laws make email a liability. There is a system that individual email can be archived to the network drive so if someone needs to keep copies for legal or archival reasons they can. Hehe, a number of the smarter users started archiving their email to network drives and got slapped down. The same argument about disk space, tape backups, etc was used. Users were in a no-win situation... |
|
DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Covad Communicat..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to chip89
said by chip89:Outlook has a tool that ...
I know. I was trying to stick to generics since a lot of folks these days seem to not be able to stretch concepts. I get a lot of "But you said such-and-such! You mean I also can do that with XYZ?"
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following." |
|
Reviews:
 ·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to PToN
At my workplace we used to have really large mailboxes. We've been restricted to 1 GB and soon to 500 MB. If we go over we can still receive but not send any mail until it's been cleaned up.
The rationale:
Basically someone decided that public disclosure / privacy laws make email a liability. There is a system that individual email can be archived to the network drive so if someone needs to keep copies for legal or archival reasons they can. The bottom line is that we've been told email is not to be a long term storage and archiving system. |
|
 chip89
join:2012-07-05
Independence, OH | reply to DC DSL
Outlook has a tool that can be configured to purge the inbox based on information that the user tells it when to do so. The tool is called sweep. |
|
Netkeys
join:2000-12-08
Fort Lauderdale, FL | reply to PToN
I have a number of insurance agency's for clients and there top performers and agents handling commercial account can generate about 30 gig's a year easily. I was looking at new hosting services and finally decided to stick with gmail business and start achieving with Mailstore. The problem with insurance agencies is you have to save ever message for legal reasons.
With Mailstore I can backup (archive) nightly and delete from Gmail when close to limit and it has a Outlook plug in so access to the archived messages is quick and easy. Also if there is a problem with Gmail or internet access they still have access to the archives on the local server. Is the best and happens to be the most cost effective option I could find.
Having the legal requirements really takes more options away. |
|
DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Covad Communicat..
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to lorennerol
said by lorennerol:said by DarkLogix:Also one feature of exchange (similar to dedup) I'm told "single instance" (or atleast that's what I recall it being called by a IT manager)
MS removed SIMS in Exchange 2010. They published a long and rambling explanation about why. It had something to do with cheap disk space and a performance increase. Way back when a domain consisted of servers that mostly sat within a short cable hop of each other, it made sense to single-instance attachments. Now that the servers can be all around the planet it poses countless issues to maintain sync and consistency...attachments or not.
For the enlightenment of the unrepentant recalcitrants, I stage the occasional "blow away the mailbox" demonstrations. After dumping to a PST and copying it to a couple of locations, I press the magic *POOF!* button and wipe their messages out of existence. Daddy does his magic and fixes and tells them they have until COB the next day to get it cleaned up and to keep it clean because it could happen again...and you never know when it will be something that can't be recovered. A few times the mortal didn't comply so I did it again and "could only recover" the last month's worth of stuff that was in the inbox. Followed up with a memo to them and their bosses that the mortals were warned, did not heed, violated policy, and I would hear no further complaining about the matter. The message was received and understood. (Always make sure you have copies so you can retrieve anything truly critical.)
--
"Dance like the photo isn't being tagged; love like you've never been unfriended; and tweet like nobody is following." |
|
 MJimLayAKA FlexBaudPremium
join:2004-10-06
Pensacola, FL
kudos:2 | reply to PToN
I will say that it isn't usual.
The largest exchange mailbox I know we have is well over 100+ GB, and the largest I personally have ran across was 65+ GB. I run across 20+ GB mailboxes on a daily basis. |
|
DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | reply to lorennerol
Ya just sort the sent items by size and look out. |
|
| reply to DarkLogix
said by DarkLogix:Also one feature of exchange (similar to dedup) I'm told "single instance" (or atleast that's what I recall it being called by a IT manager)
MS removed SIMS in Exchange 2010. They published a long and rambling explanation about why. It had something to do with cheap disk space and a performance increase.
The vast majority of these huge mailboxes I see is just laziness. A quick inspection of the user's inbox, sent, and deleted folders typically reveal tens of thousands of emails; they just never clean anything up.
I've given up harping about it. I just tell clients they either change the habits of users or throw money at the problem. Except the few still on Exchange 2003 who have hit the max database size and are forced to cleanup, they all choose to spend money. |
|
