Re: Exchange 2003 Cached mode with slow link and large mailboxes

Tech-Archive recommends: Speed Up your PC by fixing your registry

From: nostros damos (nick_at_eoeooo.com)
Date: 11/01/04 

Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 21:10:51 -0000

Al,
thanks for the reply. Extremely useful answers.

OK, sorry yes the OST accounts will be securely withheld as different users log in via their AD account.

We have about 300 users. About 100 have 400MB mailboxes and approx 10 have 1-2GB. These are Notes database sizes. I don't know what
the Exchange mailbox or OST sizes would be. I've read OST files can be twice as big an the Exchange mailbox size. I think we'll have
to encourage the users to archive some emails.

Basically, I have the option of a single Exchange 2003 mail server or multiple (per site). Each site will require a cluster and
redundant storage which means a distributed architecture will be much more expensive! If Exchange Cached-mode was perfect, we could
implement a centralised topology and sit pretty.

NB I have approx 300 users split between the 1MBit connection, but internal and external email averages to only about 300MBytes per
day - bandwidth hardly ever maxed out.
NB2 Additionally, I hope we'll move into the 21st century and upgrade the 1MBit connection, too!

Before I say single server, cached mode is the way to go, also we will have a good amount of Public Folders! Can I setup a public
folder server near the users - I doubt it unless the user's mailbox is on that server, too ? Actually, if I setup a Public folder
server, I may aswell put the mailboxes on it anyway.

Thanks again!
rgds,
Nick

"Al Mulnick" <amulnick_No_SPAM@ncDOTrr.com> wrote in message news:eoKct%237vEHA.3908@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The data would be accessible off-line, so if you're concerned about people
> having access to the OST for hacking, you would want to ensure they use AD
> accounts for logon. You may want to enable some sort of encryption locally
> as well, but that's totally up to your security policy.
>
> Will it work for 1-2GB mailboxes? Define work and I can answer that better.
> After about a 1.5 GB file it could get to be a performance problem,
> especially if they choose to change a view or something. The initial
> download and synch would take a while as well. You may want to keep those
> mailboxes smaller via PST's etc, but again, define work and I can answer
> better.
>
> Remember that cached mode is about the user experience. Once sync'd,
> they'll feel like they're getting better performance because they'll work
> with the local copy and sync changes to the server. They'll still need to
> pull the large files and you'll still want to prevent spam from reaching the
> mailbox.
>
> Also, a 1Mb network connection might be fine if you're talking 10 users with
> plenty of available bandwidth and small message sizes. It might be
> different with 1000 users, no available bandwidth to speak of, and large
> binary messages traversing the link.
>
> Al
>
> "nostros damos" <nick@eoeooo.com> wrote in message
> news:41856201$0$43585$ed2e19e4@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm setting up an Exchange 2003 environment.
> >
> > It is likely that due to various constraints that in my multi-physical
> > site setup, I will only be able to have a single Backend
> > server.
> > So, one office will get fast access to mailboxes and the other will get
> > slow access. (always on but only a 1MBit/s link)
> >
> > I am concerned about the performance of their Outlook 2003 clients.
> >
> > Now, if I deploy the mailboxes with Cached-mode, will this work for the
> > users who have 1 or 2 GB of mail!?
> > Also, what happens when people share PC's? Will this still work?
> > What about mailbox security as it will be stored on the local disk?
> > I am concerned about complications such as these.
> >
> > rgds,
> > Nick.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Message size differs between OST and Exchange store
    ... We've seen issues in the past where Exchange 2003 reports the incorrect size of the mailbox from the simple view in ESM compared to what runs gets reported every night when maintenance runs, and what the user sees in Outlook (both Local Data & Server Data tabs and on the File System). ... Moving the mailbox to another DB fixes this reporting inconsistency in ESM, but OST vs ESM differences will always vary by 25-85% for large mailboxes I've seen. ... using the "Folder Size" button for any Outlook folder (context ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Message size differs between OST and Exchange store
    ... she was simply comparing the local and server data ... than in the OST (Outlook mailbox cleanup wizard: ... know what the average size difference is between a mailbox and an OST, ... Did you check the sync issues folder as Rich suggested? ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • The Esc Character.
    ... I then tried Mac help for the Mac email client that I use with effectivity to find the article I copy and paste below. ... where I selected all of the messages and then clicked on Remove From Server. ... My mailbox is over its quota ... For .Mac or IMAP accounts, click the Size header to find the largest mail folders on your server. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.misc)
  • Re: Offline Files -- & -- Migration Strategy
    ... So your mail is delivered to a mailbox on your MailSite server, ... Outlook, running on your desktop PC, retrieves it using POP, right? ... just configure Exchange to be the SMTP server as in a normal SBS ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: cannot connect to mailbox after new install
    ... the new exch server was selected already. ... As for removing old exch svr, i don't have the old svr anymore; ... Can you verify the manual removal of your old Exchange Server? ... I did a find for users with exch mailbox and was able to find 41 ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)