Re: Exchange 2003 oddity
From: Mark Arnold [MVP] (mark_at_mvps.org)
Date: 07/22/04
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Exchange Administrator"
- Previous message: Mark Arnold [MVP]: "Re: Exchange Server 2000 not sending mail in timely fashion"
- In reply to: Curt Shaffer: "Re: Exchange 2003 oddity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:29:48 +0100
No, the default is to mount at boot, certainly on the default stores
in a fresh install.
"Curt Shaffer" <curt@chilitech.net> wrote:
>But would it put the check in the do not mount on boot in the properties of
>the store?
>
>"Marty" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>news:203201c46ff6$9140d680$a401280a@phx.gbl...
>> Check you event logs. The only time I have seen this
>> happen is when another problem exists at boot that is
>> preventing the Stores from being mounted.
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>Just a question for everyone out there. I just did an
>> install of Exchange
>>>2003 (for the first time) and I noticed something I found
>> odd. It seems that
>>>the default setting on the mailbox/public stores is not
>> to mount on boot. Is
>>>there a valid reason for this? Just wondering because I
>> got a call from the
>>>company saying that their exchange wasn't working and I
>> found that the
>>>stores were not mounted and that was the reason. I
>> mounted them and removed
>>>that check and now they are good to go. Odd : \
>>>
>>>Curt
>>>
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>
Mark Arnold MCSA MCSE+M MVP, mark@mvps.org
FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exchange.htm &
http:http://www.swinc.com/resource/e2kfaq.htm
- Next message: Harry: "Re: Exchange Administrator"
- Previous message: Mark Arnold [MVP]: "Re: Exchange Server 2000 not sending mail in timely fashion"
- In reply to: Curt Shaffer: "Re: Exchange 2003 oddity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
