Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log

• Previous message: Matthew Byrd [MSFT]: "Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log"
• In reply to: Matthew Byrd [MSFT]: "Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log"
• Next in thread: Goran Kimovski: "Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log"
• Reply: Goran Kimovski: "Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:28:56 +0100

Hello Matthew,

thank you, we will follow your recommendation ... I would like to express my
thanks for all your help till now ... Any information I may come into
regarding our problem will be posted back to the newsgroup ... in hope we'll
find a solution ...

/Kima

"Matthew Byrd [MSFT]" <matbyrd@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ednoH0zEEHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi Goran,
>
> At this point I am going to have to recommend that you contact Microsoft
> Development Support. Our DSW Messaging group is very knowledgeable about
> CDO and accessing Exchange. They should be able to further assist you
with
> this issue.
>
> I personally would love to continue helping you with this but I am afraid
> that this has gone beyond my level of expertise and that it is best to
> engage the proper support people on the phone to assist you with this
issue
> and help get you resolved as quickly as possible.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Matthew Byrd
> Microsoft PSS
>
> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
> that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>
> "Goran Kimovski" <goran.kimovski@no.spam.please.atseavus.com> wrote in
> message news:eUHoRcyEEHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Hello Matthew,
> >
> > you understand correct, we only get the Messages collection from the
> > Calendar folder (after applying the date filter), go through the
> > appointments and their attributes (subject, start/end date, busy status)
> and
> > that's it ...
> >
> > The reason why I asked you if the article I found could be connected to
> our
> > case is that the symptoms described there (not only transaction logs,
but
> > also the public folder store exposes excessive growth) are fully
matching
> > the symptoms reported by the customers.
> >
> > Anyway, we've tested the scenario you described in your first reply (on
an
> > Exchange 2000 with SP3, i.e. no post-SP3 rollup) and I can confirm that
> the
> > transaction log is increasing only when changing the date on the machine
> (we
> > manually changed the date in order to speed up the tests). If you leave
> the
> > service to synchronize the calendar for several times without changing
the
> > date nothing is written in the log, but once the date is changed, the
> first
> > attempt to read the calendar on the new date makes the log increase a
bit
> > ... btw, the public folder store was not touched (didn't change its size
> or
> > modified date) during the whole time we run the tests ...
> >
> > What is puzzling is that at the two customer sites in question, the
> > transaction logs constantly increase while our service is running
> (stopping
> > the service, stops the log size increase) ... if the temporary search
> tables
> > would've been the cause for this, then that would mean that something
> causes
> > Exchange/CDO not to cache the search tables, i.e. they're recreated all
> the
> > time.
> >
> > We're completely clueless at this point :-(
> >
> > /Kima
> >
> > "Matthew Byrd [MSFT]" <matbyrd@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23UaOx4nEEHA.3064@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > Hi Goran,
> > >
> > > My understanding of your tool is that it is hitting the calendar of
the
> > user
> > > and not the users Free/Busy information? If that is the case then you
> are
> > > not touching the public folder store in any significant way as long as
> > your
> > > are not making modifications to the calendar itself.
> > >
> > > Hope this Helps,
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthew Byrd
> > > Microsoft PSS
> > >
> > > When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader
so
> > > that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> > >
> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Goran Kimovski" <goran.kimovski@no.spam.please.atseavus.com> wrote in
> > > message news:uyqOWjZEEHA.3716@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > Me again :-)
> > > >
> > > > I just found this article: 815769 XADM: Many Transaction Logs Are
> > Created
> > > > When Clients Search for Free/Busy Calendaring Information
> > > > (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;815769)
where
> > it
> > > > basically says that the views are not cached if searching for
> free/busy
> > > > information and the locales between the client and the server differ
> ...
> > > >
> > > > Could this be the cause of our headaches?
> > > >
> > > > /Kima
> > > >
> > > > "Goran Kimovski" <goran.kimovski@no.spam.please.atseavus.com> wrote
in
> > > > message news:uIWzwKYEEHA.1092@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > > > Hello Matthew,
> > > > >
> > > > > the situation with the transaction logs is becoming more and more
> > > alarming
> > > > > ... now we have a new customer with the same problem, where it's
> been
> > > > > verified that the problem is not caused by a virus scanning or so
by
> > > > hiding
> > > > > the M drive and even stopping the anti-virus software entirely ...
> > > > >
> > > > > We also got some new information that may bring some new light in
> > > > > understanding the whole problem ... the Exchange administrator
> reports
> > > > that
> > > > > the Public Folder store is growing rapidly too (even though it's
not
> > > used
> > > > by
> > > > > the users) and crashes or hangs the Exchange Server after a while
> ...
> > Is
> > > > CDO
> > > > > using this store for the temporary search table for the view based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > filter?
> > > > >
> > > > > What is also different at this site is that we're talking about a
> > single
> > > > > Exchange Server with only 40 mailboxes ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there maybe a problem in the way we create the filter on the
> > Messages
> > > > > collection in CDO, which makes the CDO to e.g. re-create the
search
> > > table
> > > > or
> > > > > at least re-populate it again every time we run the
synchronization
> > > cycle
> > > > in
> > > > > our service?
> > > > >
> > > > > Any kind of help is highly appreciated at this point ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance ...
> > > > >
> > > > > /Kima
> > > > >
> > > > > "Goran Kimovski" <goran.kimovski@no.spam.please.atseavus.com>
wrote
> in
> > > > > message news:eGOooJfDEHA.3692@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > Hello Matthew,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > thanks for the e-mail ... it may bring an entirely new light on
> our
> > > case
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > unfortunately, testing at the customer site is real hard to
convey
> > ...
> > > > the
> > > > > > customer is rather angry and the hosting company not exactly
> willing
> > > to
> > > > > > cooperate ... I'll have to see if something can be done to
> persuade
> > > them
> > > > > to
> > > > > > verify your finding ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meanwhile, we'll try out your suggestion in our own lab ... I
> would,
> > > > > though,
> > > > > > like to ask you few more things regarding the problem ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You say that you create search tables within the database, using
> the
> > > > > filter
> > > > > > we set in CDO and if the filter doesn't change (as we're using a
> > date
> > > > > > filter, it doesn't change during the day), than the same search
> > table
> > > is
> > > > > > reused upon the subsequent accesses to the same view. In that
> case,
> > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > expect that the log files will be created only at the start-up
of
> > our
> > > > > > service or in the first synchronization cycle after midnight
(the
> > > > service
> > > > > is
> > > > > > configured to synchronize the calendar every 10 minutes ... or
> > rather,
> > > > to
> > > > > > read the appointments matching the 7 day filter and than sleep
for
> > 10
> > > > > > minutes till the next cycle).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately, at this particular customer site, the transaction
> > logs
> > > > are
> > > > > > created constantly while the service synchronizes the appointmen
ts
> > (1
> > > or
> > > > 2
> > > > > > files per minute) and than they stop piling up during the idle
> time
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > service ... also, if you simply stop the service, than the
> creation
> > of
> > > > > > transaction logs stops too and immediately after you start it,
the
> > > logs
> > > > > > start coming up immediately ... actually, this is the reason why
> the
> > > > > hosting
> > > > > > company is unwilling to cooperate as they claim they have their
> > > > > > configuration according to the MS recommendations for the virus
> > > scanning
> > > > > and
> > > > > > backup and they believe our service misbehaves for some reason
...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The code synchronizing the calendar in our service is rather
> simple
> > > ...
> > > > > I've
> > > > > > taken out the important part (without any error checking and
other
> > > > non-CDO
> > > > > > code) to show you how it looks like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > startDate = Date
> > > > > > endDate = DateAdd("d", 7, startDate)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Set mapiSession = New MAPI.Session
> > > > > > mapiSession.Logon , , False, True, 0, True, server & vbLf & user
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Set calendarFolder =
> > > > > mapiSession.GetDefaultFolder(CdoDefaultFolderCalendar)
> > > > > > Set appointmentList = calendarFolder.Messages
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Set calendarFilter = appointmentList.Filter
> > > > > > Set appointmentStart =
calendarFilter.Fields.Add(CdoPR_START_DATE,
> > > > > endDate)
> > > > > > Set appointmentEnd = calendarFilter.Fields.Add(CdoPR_END_DATE,
> > > > startDate)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For Each appointment In appointmentList
> > > > > > ' read the appointment attributes like:
> > > > > > ' StartTime, EndTime, BusyStatus, AllDayEvent, Sensitivity,
> > > > Location,
> > > > > > Subject, Text
> > > > > > Next appointment
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The code above is run for all the users found in the selected
> > address
> > > > list
> > > > > > (at the particular customer in question, that is the
> > > GlobalAddressList).
> > > > > As
> > > > > > you can see, even if search tables are created in the Exchange
> > > database
> > > > > when
> > > > > > using the filter for the first time, all subsequent cycles will
> > simply
> > > > > reuse
> > > > > > the search table ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Do you think something can cause the search tables to be always
> > > > recreated?
> > > > > > If yes, that could explain the constant increase of the
> transaction
> > > logs
> > > > > > throughout the day ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only things that come to my mind as being different than the
> > rest
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > customers which are successfully using our service without this
> > > problem
> > > > > are:
> > > > > > - The server we use in the MAPI Logon is always the same, but
the
> > > > > mailboxes
> > > > > > are actually stored on 11 different servers (the
GlobalAddressList
> > is
> > > > > > replicated among all 12 servers)
> > > > > > - Our service runs on a separate machine and the CDO installed
on
> > that
> > > > > > machine was coming from an Exchange 5.5 CD (installed by
> installing
> > > the
> > > > > > Exchange 5.5 Administrator and also patched with Exchange 5.5.
> SP4,
> > > > > post-SP4
> > > > > > CDO patch and Exchange 5.5 CDO Patch 2657.55) ... I don't know
why
> > 5.5
> > > > was
> > > > > > used, I guess the reseller installing the software had 5.5 CD
> close
> > at
> > > > > hand
> > > > > > and didn't bother to get a 2000 CD :-) ... however, I don't
> believe
> > > that
> > > > > > using CDO 5.5.xxxx or CDO 6.0.xxx would make any difference
(guess
> > you
> > > > can
> > > > > > tell me if I'm wrong or not)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The situation is getting rather critical as the customer feels
> that
> > > > we're
> > > > > > responsible for the problems they're experiencing with their
> > Exchange
> > > > > > Servers, so any help is highly appreciated ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /Kima
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Matthew Byrd [MSFT]" <matbyrd@online.microsoft.com> wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > news:Oeg18QcDEHA.2804@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > Goran Kimovski,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here is what I think you have happening with CDO and
transaction
> > log
> > > > > file
> > > > > > > generation. In Exchange anytime we access content with a
> specific
> > > > view
> > > > > we
> > > > > > > have to create a search table within the database so that this
> > > > > information
> > > > > > > can be presented to the client. This is done so that
subsequent
> > > view
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > folder with that given view are just simple accesses of the
> search
> > > > > table.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Depending on the view used these search tables can either be
> > > updated,
> > > > > > > unchanging, or recreated when accessed on a new day. Given
your
> > > > > > description
> > > > > > > of what is happening I am guessing that when the CDO app hits
> the
> > > > store
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > requests the 7 day filter that we are creating a search table
in
> > the
> > > > > store
> > > > > > > to support this view.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The act of creating this search table and or updating it will
> > cause
> > > > > > > transaction log files to be generated as these are
modifications
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > > database.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you want to test this out I recommend the following test
> > > sequence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Wait until late at night when a minimum number of users are
> > > logged
> > > > > into
> > > > > > > the system.
> > > > > > > 2. Make sure nothing is touching the M: drive (hitting the M
> drive
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > big
> > > > > > > culprit for creating translogs) Using the following article
will
> > > > ensure
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > nothing is inadvertently hitting the M: Drive.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 305145 HOW TO: Remove the IFS Mapping for Drive M in Exchange
> 2000
> > > > > Server
> > > > > > > http://support.microsoft.com/?id=305145
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Stop the SMTP virtual server thru the Exchange System
> manager.
> > > This
> > > > > > will
> > > > > > > stop all mailflow.
> > > > > > > 4. Note the current number of transaction log files
> > > > > > > 5. Run the CDO application
> > > > > > > 6. After the application stops running determine the new
number
> of
> > > > > > > transaction log files.
> > > > > > > 7. Start the SMTP virtual server thru the Exchange System
> manager.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This test sequence will minimize the number of things that
will
> be
> > > > > > touching
> > > > > > > store so that hopefully the only thing is now the CDO
> application.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope this helps,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Matthew Byrd
> > > > > > > Microsoft PSS
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your
> > > newsreader
> > > > so
> > > > > > > that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
> > no
> > > > > > rights.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Goran Kimovski" <goran.kimovski@no.spam.please.atseavus.com>
> > wrote
> > > in
> > > > > > > message news:u%23fAmGSDEHA.2308@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > <<<Forward as a new post in hope to draw higher attention
from
> > > more
> > > > > > > users>>>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forced to continue this thread as we still have problems ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I've sent the KB articles to the hosting company where the
12
> > > > Exchange
> > > > > > > > Servers are hosted and they removed all of the folders
listed
> in
> > > the
> > > > > MS
> > > > > > > > recommendation (some were indeed scanned by the anti-virus
...
> > > btw,
> > > > > > > they're
> > > > > > > > using GroupShield ... don't know what version). They also
> > checked
> > > > the
> > > > > > > backup
> > > > > > > > routines (they're using Computer Associates software for
that)
> > and
> > > > say
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > were set according to the recommendations already. However,
> they
> > > > > report
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > changes in the behavior of the transaction logs, i.e. they
> still
> > > > > rapidly
> > > > > > > > grow when our service reads the appointments from the user's
> > > > > mailboxes.
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > > > is also noted that the store.exe process, which is usually
> using
> > > > very
> > > > > > low
> > > > > > > > CPU resources, now runs at 15-20% on average and has peaks
as
> > high
> > > > as
> > > > > > > > 90-100% ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unfortunately I have too many communication layers to the
> > hosting
> > > > > > company,
> > > > > > > > plus they haven't been much trustworthy up to now (and
they're
> > > big,
> > > > so
> > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > can easily convince the customer that they run everything
> > > perfectly
> > > > > and
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > is our software that causes all the trouble), so I can't
tell
> if
> > > the
> > > > > > > > anti-virus and backup are really excluding the M drive and
> > > Exchange
> > > > > > > folders
> > > > > > > > on all Exchange servers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would like to ask you, under the assumption that
everything
> is
> > > > > really
> > > > > > > set
> > > > > > > > properly, if you can think of any other reason why we still
> have
> > > the
> > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > problem ...
> > > > > > > > We're using CDO to:
> > > > > > > > - logon to the mailboxes,
> > > > > > > > - open the calendar folder,
> > > > > > > > - set a filter to read only 7 days and
> > > > > > > > - retrieve the appointment entries
> > > > > > > > ... without any write/set operation whatsoever ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I said in my first post in this thread, the installation
is
> > set
> > > > so
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > mailboxes are distributed over 11 Exchange servers and we
> access
> > > > them
> > > > > by
> > > > > > > > performing a logon to the 12th, central Exchange Server and
> then
> > > > using
> > > > > > CDO
> > > > > > > > to retrieve the calendar.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another thing worth noting may be that our service is run on
a
> > > > > separate
> > > > > > > > machine, i.e. not on the central Exchange Server and the CDO
> on
> > > that
> > > > > > > machine
> > > > > > > > is installed from an Exchange 5.5 CD, i.e. CDO.DLL is of
> version
> > > 5.5
> > > > > > (with
> > > > > > > > post-SP4 update). We plan to install a new CDO from Exchange
> > 2000
> > > CD
> > > > > > > > tomorrow just to rule out if this could be of any relation
to
> > the
> > > > > > original
> > > > > > > > problem or not, but don't expect any change ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Any input from anyone who can say something to help us find
a
> > > > solution
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > our problem is highly appreciated ...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > /Kima
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> > > > > > > > <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com>
> > wrote
> > > in
> > > > > > > message
> > > > > > > > news:uq0Gd2PDEHA.1452@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > You're most welcome! Yes, these articles are great.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Goran Kimovski wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks Lanwench, you've been of great help ...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I also found several articles in the MS KB related to
> virus
> > > > > scanning
> > > > > > > > > > and Exchange ... I guess some of the readers of the
> > newsgroup
> > > > > could
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > interested to read them (the company hosting the
Exchange
> > > Server
> > > > > > > > > > apparently didn't :-) ), so I'll place them in this
post:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 245822 XGEN: Recommendations for Troubleshooting an
> Exchange
> > > > > Server
> > > > > > > > > > Computer with Antivirus Installed
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;245822)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 299046 XADM: Calendar Items Disappear from User's
Folders
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;299046)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 298551 XADM: Large Number of Transaction Logs Created
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;298551)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 298924 XADM: Do Not Back Up or Scan Exchange 2000 Drive
M
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;298924)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 328841 XADM: Exchange and Antivirus Software
> > > > > > > > > > (http://support.microsoft.com/?id=328841)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > /Kima
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> > > > > > > > > >
> <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com>
> > > > wrote
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > message news:ehkDCw3CEHA.3748@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > >> Goran Kimovski wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>> Hello Lanwench,
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> unfortunately I can't answer your question as the
> servers
> > > are
> > > > > > hosted
> > > > > > > > > >>> by a third party service provider and the information
> > about
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> mailbox replication is something I've got through them
> ...
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> However, it seems that the problem was actually
related
> to
> > > an
> > > > > > > > > >>> anti-virus program scanning the M: partition ... we
> could
> > > > easily
> > > > > > > > > >>> reproduce the same behaviour on a simple installation
of
> a
> > > > > single
> > > > > > > > > >>> Exchange 2000 Server with dozen of mailboxes ... by
> > running
> > > > > Norton
> > > > > > > > > >>> Corporate Anti-virus on the M: partition and starting
> our
> > > > > service,
> > > > > > > > > >>> the transaction log files started to pile up ... this
> > seems
> > > to
> > > > > > slow
> > > > > > > > > >>> down the service too, actually ... don't know if the
> > problem
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > > > > >>> the read operation take more time or something ... we
> > didn't
> > > > > > > > > >>> investigate much further since it seems we now have
what
> > to
> > > > look
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > >>> at the customer site ...
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> One thing regarding this ... do you recon it is safe
to
> > > > exclude
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > >>> M: partition and/or other folders from virus scaning?
> I'm
> > > not
> > > > > sure
> > > > > > > > > >>> it'll be acceptable for the service provider hosting
the
> > > > > Exchange
> > > > > > > > > >>> Servers to do that, though, so if you have any other
> > > > > suggestions,
> > > > > > > > > >>> please let me know them ...
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >> You must *always* exclude the M drive and all Exchange
> > > folders
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > >> backup and file-level virus scanning. It can cause
major
> > > > > problems.
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> /Kima
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
> > > > > > > > > >>>
> > <lanwench@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmail.atyahoo.com>
> > > > > wrote
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>> message
news:%23CL7Qw2CEHA.1544@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > >>>> Goran Kimovski wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Hello Mark,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the service can't be more simple ... it simply is
> > > scheduled
> > > > to
> > > > > > go
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> through all accounts in the global address list,
open
> > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> mailboxes for each account and read the appointments
> > > > scheduled
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> for today and the coming 7 days ... it does not
write
> > > > anything
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the mailboxes nor anywhere else ... Since it is
purely
> > > > > > CDO-based,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the only possible way that something is written is
by
> > the
> > > > CDO
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> itself, but I highly doubt that ...
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> What made me suspect it could be so that some
temporal
> > > > > > replication
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> is performed is that we have another customer with 6
> > > > Exchange
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> Servers and total of 600 mailboxes on them, where
the
> > > > > mailboxes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> are synchronised to the central server (don't aks me
> why
> > > > :-) )
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> and we're reading the appointments from the central
> > server
> > > > > using
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> the same service, but we do not have any problems
with
> > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> transaction log there ... As far as we can see, the
> only
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> difference between the two customers is the fact
that
> > the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> mailboxes are replicated to the central server at
one
> > > > > customer,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> while not at the other ...
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>> How are mailboxes being replicated? Nothing native to
> > > > > Exchange/AD
> > > > > > > > > >>>> does this.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> /Kima
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> "Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@mvps.org> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > >>>>> news:b1fc01c40781$6fd25f10$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Nothing is making Exchange replicate mailbox
> > information
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> anywhere. The creation of the log files is possibly
> due
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to your application extracting data from and
writing
> to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the mailboxes some form of data or flag etc. Would
> that
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> make sense based on your knowledge of your
> application?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> If your app just read some data then it wouldn't
> create
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> so many logs.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Hello folks,
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> My company produces a service that connects to an
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Exchange Server using CDO
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> to collect users from a selected address list and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> appointments from a 7 day
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> period for the user's mailboxes. The service has
> been
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> working fine on more
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> than 30 customer sites, both connecting to
Exchange
> > 5.5
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and Exchange 2000
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> without any problems. However, now we have a
> customer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> that runs 12 Exchange
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Servers in a network, where one central server is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> replicating the address
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> lists from all local servers, but the user's
> mailboxes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> are not replicated to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> it. It's been reported to us that when our service
> > runs
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the synchronisation
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> cycle, i.e. reads the appointments from the
> mailboxes
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> (around 250 in total),
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> the transaction log increases rapidly.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I know that by performing regular online backups
the
> > log
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> files from the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> MDBDATA folder get purged and all that stuff, but
> the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> question is not how to
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> workaround the problem, but rather why reading
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> appointments causes the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> transaction log to increase?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> We're suspecting that the fact that the mailboxes
> are
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> found on the local
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> servers, but we're accessing them through the
> central
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> server is making
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Exchange to do some temporal replication of the
> > mailbox
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> our service is
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> opening, which is seen as a transaction and placed
> in
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the log.
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> I would like to hear if anyone can confirm our
> > suspicion
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> and have any
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> suggestions?
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Btw, we have a customer with 6 Exchange Servers
and
> > 600
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> maiboxes where we
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> again connect to a central server, but they
> replicate
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> the mailboxes to the
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> central server too and we do not see this problem
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> there ...
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> /Kima
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Goran Kimovski
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Chief Technical Officer
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> Seavus Group
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> www.seavus.com
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> "Turning your visions into technical solutions and
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>> products."
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

• Previous message: Matthew Byrd [MSFT]: "Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log"
• In reply to: Matthew Byrd [MSFT]: "Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log"
• Next in thread: Goran Kimovski: "Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log"
• Reply: Goran Kimovski: "Re: Re: A problem with rapid growth of the transaction log"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]