Re: Public Folder Limits FAQ?

Wow! Dave how did u do that? SP2 still retains the user-mailbox limit of
~2Gb and doesnt allow me to exceed this.
Have you hacked the registry or something??

"Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OZPdDTTSGHA.224@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
No clue. I just set mine to 300,000 to test it, and it allowed me to use
that. Are you making this setting in the properties of the Mailbox Store
under First Storage Group?

The only thing I can think of is that I just installed SP2 last week. Are
you on a prior SP?

IMO if you're going to set a limit that high, I'd just not set it at all.
You can easily monitor mailbox size and request action from users who seem
excessive. I realize everyone's situation is different, but I don't
control mailbox size at all. I have one user who's never deleted an item
AFAIK, and her mailbox is just over a GB.


"Jonathan Davey" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OU8hQXOSGHA.4616@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thats weird Dave, so why cant I set global mailbox limit greater than
200000 then?

"Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:uaDDxBFSGHA.4456@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
There are two separate stores, mailbox and public. Each can be 75 GB
max. You can set mailbox quotas to limit users to a certain mailbox size
if you wish, but there are no hard coded limits on the size of
individual mailboxes or public folders that I've ever heard of. There's
no cumulative limit unless you impose one on mailboxes, in which case
the user would have to stay under the mailbox size limit. But public
folders would not count against the mailbox quota - they're completely
separate information stores.

Outlook 2003 running in Unicode mode can have a very large OST. I
believe around 20 GB is the maximum recommended size. 2 GB is the limit
for the older ANSI files used by previous Outlook versions. You don't
have to cache public folders - by default those appearing in the Public
Folder Favorites are cached, but you don't have to do that if you don't
want to.

The issue I have with the large public folder is caused solely by the
fact that it is a single folder holding tens of thousands of items. If
I reduced the number of items in the folder, performance would be
better. I have a subfolder of my Inbox that contains around 20,000
items. Performance on that folder is noticeably slower than it is with
smaller folders. If I divided those items into four subfolders instead
of one, I wouldn't have any performance issues, even though I'd still
have all 20,000 items in subfolders of my Inbox. When I say
performance, I mean scrolling, sorting, and searching. Within reason,
this does not relate to total PF or mailbox size, it's just the number
of items in the single folder.

Just to clarify, the issue is number of items. I would expect a folder
with 200 e-mails each with a 5 MB attachment to perform about the same
as a folder with 200 attachment-free e-mails. But a folder with the
same 2 GB size in messages without attachments would be just about
unusable because of the huge number of items involved.

It's not cache related - the folder with the 20,000 items is cached and
performs a little slowly. The PF is not cached, but I wouldn't suspect
it to perform any better if it was. IMO the performance benefits of
caching in an SBS sized network are minimal at best. Unlike in a big
enterprise, I suspect that most of our available network bandwidth in
the SBS world is sitting around idly anyway. And I doubt my local
desktop's HD can get the data to my screen much faster than 15K SCSI
server drives on a server with caching hardware raid and 4 GB RAM.

If you are currently using Outlook 2003 in standalone mode, I can't
think of any limitations you will experience by going to Exchange. If
Exchange were less functional than standalone Outlook, why would people
buy it?


"Jonathan Davey" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23OFeYjBSGHA.3192@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thanks,

So when we say "75Gb" we mean TOTAL mail/folder EXCHANGE/SERVER storage
in any event. Rather than say /mailuser or /publicfolder.

Presumably 2Gb is about the "right" max limit for a "mailbox-username"
and persumably 2gb would be (and as intimated) the max for a public
folder.

But im still in the dark, are we saying 2Gb for THE PUBLIC folder
including subfolders? Or can each sub-folder be say 2Gb in its own
right?

Or do we consider the entire group..........

I mean mailbox-username PLUS(+) public folder must be less than 2Gb for
any given user account (connection).

My reasoning being that there is a "network limit" to each connection
in exchange (connection = user) where folder sizes are cumalitive and
in reality there is no differentiation between syncing a public folder
items and a mailbox-user items; if you see what I mean?


Sorry to be so dumb, but I need to get this right for everything to
work.

Sorry if i confused with "personal" and "mailbox-user" I did actually
mean OST and not PST. Which kinda begs the question why Dave struggles
with a 1.5Gb OST previewing... presumably its cached isnt it?

I do use a PST folder, which is 2.5Gb and it happily previews, sorts,
searches with no difficulty. Im on a 10yr project in construction where
many emails are ~10mb in size.

I want to move completely to Exchange and OST, hence the questions
regarding limits etc.

As I recall Exchange has a hard limit per mailbox of ~2Gb regardless of
the 75Gb uplift! The uplift presumably allows more mailbox-users rather
than larger mailboxes?? And again I believe the 2Gb limit applys to
Public Folders also...... I seem to have gone full circle!?!


"Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:%23MwnoN4RGHA.1948@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As Susan says, the storage limit is 75 GB. However, there are
practical limits based on performance. I have a 1.5 GB public folder
that archives a bunch of e-mails we never use for anything.
Performance on that folder is absolutely horrible - Outlook takes
forever to display the contents of the folder. Forget about sorting
or searching. I also have a folder of about 22 MB containing around
3000 contacts in a custom form. There is no performance issue on that
folder whatsoever.

So depending on what you want to do, you'll have to experiment and see
how you make out. You can always subdivide folder contents, or find a
way to get the items into SQL - maybe with SharePoint.

BTW, my SBS is running on brand new hardware with a dual core and 4 gb
ram - performance of huge public folders is not something you can
solve with hardware.


"Jonathan Davey" <me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u%237S%23X1RGHA.5108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Are there limits to Public Folders? Like the 2gb limit on personal
folders?

Can anyone point me to a good QA resource for public folders.

Thanks

Jonathan













.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Backing Up Exchange/Outlook
    ... First off I can confirm that Outlook is looking to Exchange for mail ... Therefore, when I go into NTbackup on the server, I need to back up ... and the First Storage Group consists of Mailbox Store and ... the Public Folder Store??? ...
    (microsoft.public.backoffice.smallbiz2000)
  • RE: send email with exchange in a domain and SBS
    ... If you want to share one user's mailbox to others, ... Exchange server. ... Right click the folder and click Properties. ... In the Permissions tab, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Disaster Recovery - restored but 1 mailbox isnt working!
    ... Event Category: Exchange Store Driver ... pasted from Queue folder to Pickup folder. ... mailbox and made a new one it may not do a whole lot. ... Blew away the Outlook ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Disaster Recovery - restored but 1 mailbox isnt working!
    ... As to your OWA problem, I really don't know where that one would be coming ... I would try to move all existing mail from the user into a PST folder, ... that doesn't help, delete the mailbox, purge it, and create a new one. ... Checked Exchange using ESEUTIL and ISINTEG and ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: Disaster Recovery - restored but 1 mailbox isnt working!
    ... that doesn't help, delete the mailbox, purge it, and create a new one. ... Checked Exchange using ESEUTIL and ISINTEG and ... either OWA or Outlook 2003. ... Inbox in Outlook to a temp folder to see if that would clear it. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
Loading