I am up against the wall as far as our e-mail capacity is concerned. I can
always buy more disk space, but I can't buy more hours in the day. Our
backups are taking forever, our restores frequently fail, and if we ever go
down, we're going down hard.
I have 200 users and have set a default mailbox limit of 100MB.
We have about 10 executives for whom that is not enough, and I have
repeatedly had to increase their limits. All 10 are now over 500 MB, 4 are
over 1 GB, and one is at 2.3 GB.
Most of the problem is attachments, of course. Almost every e-mail contains
one or more spreadsheets or proposal with embedded .jpgs.
I have explained to them repeatedly why this is not a good idea, and I have
begged them to save the attachments somewhere besides their inbox. Their
reply is that most of the time, the attachements arrive with some
introduction or preface or explanation in the body of the e-mail. When they
"Save As," they lose that contextual reference.
For instance, the body of the e-mail might read: "Dear Jim, here are the
spreadsheets you asked for. Please note that I recalculated the fixed
assets total in the second worksheet. Let me know if they are okay."
Well, when Jim "Saves As," he loses all that information. If he later goes
back to that e-mail, it contains no reference to the filenames. If he later
goes to the files, he loses the memo about the fixed assets.
Questions:
1. I am using Exchange 5.5. We will be upgrading to 2003 before the end of
the year. Does 2003 offer any feature that has a reference to the filename
of attachments _after_ the attachments have been saved off the mail store?
2. Does Exchange 5.5 have such a feature that I am ignorant of?
3. It occurs to me that one option may be to buy a separate server for the
executives, but I have no idea how or if that would work and don't even know
where to start . Would I look up keywords "connectors" or "enterprise" or
"two servers one domain"?
Thanks
Todd Fatheree - 10 Aug 2004 06:22 GMT
One simple solution to this problem is to set up archive folders so that
some of the mail would be kept in a PST file. This gets it out of Exchange,
which might help the backup time or might not...might even make it worse
depending on lots of factors. Frankly, if your backup is taking too long, I
think you'd better look into something faster. By default, unless you have
an enterprise version of Exchange, the private information store can't be
larger than 16GB. Even if you're doing a full backup plus a brick level,
you could easily back all of that up with a nice new 200GB Ultrium drive
(hey, they're not free, but they're cheaper than a server).
todd
> I am up against the wall as far as our e-mail capacity is concerned. I can
> always buy more disk space, but I can't buy more hours in the day. Our
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Thanks
Frank Hellmann - 10 Aug 2004 21:40 GMT
Hi,
even Exchange 2003 does not have these features. If you want I could code
you a tailormade application. Just send me an email to
frank.hellmann@aloaha.com
FH
+++
This Server is protected by Aloaha
+++
> I am up against the wall as far as our e-mail capacity is concerned. I can
> always buy more disk space, but I can't buy more hours in the day. Our
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Thanks
Jim Schwartz - 11 Aug 2004 00:42 GMT
If you are large enough company, go talk to your lawyers and see if they
feel comfortable with having your executives have records in e-mail for
years.
That being said, there are several archival solutions (like KVS or EAS) that
provide e-mail archival solutions.
Exchange 2003 will offer you some relied in that you can add more storage
groups and databases to keep the size of the databases smaller. It won't
solve your problem in the long run (since they'll just take up more space)
but can allow you to set generous limits for your executives and still
maintain operational limits.
> I am up against the wall as far as our e-mail capacity is concerned. I can
> always buy more disk space, but I can't buy more hours in the day. Our
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Thanks
sid - 11 Aug 2004 15:52 GMT
> If you are large enough company, go talk to your lawyers and see if they
> feel comfortable with having your executives have records in e-mail for
> years.
Well, we're large enough to have in-house counsel. Of course, she's one of
the worst offenders at 600+ MB.
Thanks to all for the suggestions. I guess I'll try to get everyone to
start archiving, although I've never been pleased with that function in
Outlook 2000. It's not intuitive, and very easy to screw up so that you
have more than one .pst file, difficult to remember the correct steps to
import every 6 months or so when you need to do it, easy to forget the
password, etc. There's just a lot of ways it can make my life more
difficult. I wonder if the archive import/export is any more intuitive with
Outlook 2003?
Bob Christian - 25 Aug 2004 07:19 GMT
Be cautious with .pst files. If the local system has a catastrophic
failure, or it is stolen, those messages are potentially gone.
Bob
> I am up against the wall as far as our e-mail capacity is concerned. I can
> always buy more disk space, but I can't buy more hours in the day. Our
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>
> Thanks
DVT - 31 Aug 2004 18:41 GMT
Well it looks like the problem you are having lies with your backup
solution and not with large mailboxes. I have worked for the company
that had executives with 2/3/4/5 GB mailboxes. It is pointless to even
mention mailbox reduction strategy. People just get annoyed with you.
The only thing you can do is to improve your backup strategy or
update your hardware. This option is in the area of your expertise and
control.
I would say let them do what they want but make them pay for it. Every
megabyte of storage carries a price - let them pay for it.