Re: Exchange and Local Bst Practices
- From: "Ben Winzenz [Exchange MVP]" <ben_winzenz@nospamdotmessageonedotcom>
- Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:10:25 -0500
I think it's safe to say that the answer is "No, this is not best practices
way of doing this".
If you want to archive correctly, it is going to end up costing some money.
The way you are currently set up to do this, those archives are not being
protected in any way. First, anyone that has access to that machine can
make a copy of the pst file. Second, the PST files are stored locally on
the computer. What happens if that computer's hard drive crashes? PST file
is lost. Did you also know that prior to Outlook 2003, all PST files are
limited to 2GB in size? If they reach 2GB, they *break*, and you can no
longer open them.
The way to protect your users from server outages would be to use Outlook
2003 in cached mode. This will store everything locally in an OST file
(Offline file), but it has the added benefit of being automatically synched
with Exchange. For all intents and purposes, Exchange still stores the
messages. All changes get synched both ways. This doesn't address the
archiving, however. There are 2 pieces to this.
1. Invest in a true archiving solution. There are a lot of them out there,
some more expensive than others. Good solutions will remove the message
from Exchange, insert a pointer, and store the actual message somewhere else
(where there is gobs of storage).
2. As an alternative to #1 (or in conjunction with), invest in upgrading to
Exchange Enterprise edition. With Enterprise edition, you can create
multiple storage groups, and multiple databases (up to 20 databases total),
which would allow you to split up users so you could still keep the store
sizes under control.
If you are retaining all mail for regulatory purposes (SOX, HIPAA),
archiving to PST files just isn't going to cut it - it may not even fit the
requirements of those bills.
--
Ben Winzenz
Exchange MVP
MessageOne
Read my blog!
http://winzenz.blogspot.com
http://feeds.feedburner.com/winzenz (RSS Feed)
"nick" <cipher7836@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156521006.029486.180520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
My organization uses email heavily. Large attachments, etc. Once an
email comes in they file it in a client folder. They must keep all old
emails including "sent" items. What they had been doing before I got
here was to create the folders under the mailbox. The problem was that
the 16GB primary storage limit was reached quickly, and sent the server
down.
We have since instituted mailbox size limits. Since users had
complained that while the server was down they had no access to email I
had them copy their inbox to the archive folder. Then I had them delete
the inbox folders off the server.
So they have now the same storage structure as before, but with email
folders on their local system. So if the server ever goes down again
they are protected.
I also set the system to archive that local copy on the server every
two weeks. So they would have a local copy, and a server copy.
SOme questions...is this the best way to do this? The only other option
was to make a larger primary storage for Exchange, but that would've
quickly flled as well.
So what I'm looking as is this:
1. Every email saved locally
2. A backup of this on the server.
Would archive backup everything in those folders, including sent, or
just the old stuff from inbox? Because I need a true copy of what they
have.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Exchange and Local Bst Practices
- From: nick
- Re: Exchange and Local Bst Practices
- References:
- Exchange and Local Bst Practices
- From: nick
- Exchange and Local Bst Practices
- Prev by Date: Re: NDR 5.5.0 and Invalid recipient 5.1.1
- Next by Date: Can't Access OWA from the outside
- Previous by thread: Exchange and Local Bst Practices
- Next by thread: Re: Exchange and Local Bst Practices
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
