 DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | reply to PToN
Re: Mailbox sizes... WTF...?!?!?! 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)
It was that when you send an attachment to multiple people that it only counts as one e-mail in your sent items, but when the mailbox is moved the space in the exch DB multiplies by the number of people you sent it to.
(Not really sure of the accuracy there but anyway)
--
»www.change.org/petitions/create-···imcity-4 |
|
 PToN
join:2001-10-04
Houston, TX | Yeah, but that has the same challenges when it comes the time to do a restore... Maybe exchange has an effective way of getting it done. |
|
| 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. |
|
DarkLogixTexan and ProudPremium
join:2008-10-23
Baytown, TX
kudos:3 | Ya just sort the sent items by size and look out. |
|
 DC DSLThere's a reason I'm Command.Premium
join:2000-07-30
Washington, DC
kudos:2
 ·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." |
|
