| Author |
Message |
fakemsce
Guest
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:01 pm Post subject:
Information Store issue |
|
|
We currently have a 200 GB information and only 350 people. In 2 years
we will be 1500 people and I'm guessing that the Information Store might get
a little larger.
We currently have a 2 node cluster setup and I'm wondering what would be the
best way to increase availablilty without having to many servers. I also need
some ideas when it comes to fault tolorance.
Personally I think we should outsource it however, the powers that be want
it in house
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Susan
Guest
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:09 pm Post subject:
Re: Information Store issue |
|
|
what version Exchange? in Exchange 2000/2003, you can configure multiple
storage groups/mailbox stores to keep the size of the store down...and I
would say you need to configure reasonable mailbox limits, as well...
"fakemsce" <fakemsce@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C71C3EB-56F9-4510-B832-1D3453518559@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | We currently have a 200 GB information and only 350 people. In 2 years
we will be 1500 people and I'm guessing that the Information Store might
get
a little larger.
We currently have a 2 node cluster setup and I'm wondering what would be
the
best way to increase availablilty without having to many servers. I also
need
some ideas when it comes to fault tolorance.
Personally I think we should outsource it however, the powers that be want
it in house |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fakemsce
Guest
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject:
Re: Information Store issue |
|
|
This is Exchange 2000 however we will be upgrading to Exchange 2003.
Also we realize that putting quotas on each mail box would be benificial
however we would still be talking about a information store that would be in
the terabytes.
"Susan" wrote:
| Quote: | what version Exchange? in Exchange 2000/2003, you can configure multiple
storage groups/mailbox stores to keep the size of the store down...and I
would say you need to configure reasonable mailbox limits, as well...
"fakemsce" <fakemsce@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C71C3EB-56F9-4510-B832-1D3453518559@microsoft.com...
We currently have a 200 GB information and only 350 people. In 2 years
we will be 1500 people and I'm guessing that the Information Store might
get
a little larger.
We currently have a 2 node cluster setup and I'm wondering what would be
the
best way to increase availablilty without having to many servers. I also
need
some ideas when it comes to fault tolorance.
Personally I think we should outsource it however, the powers that be want
it in house
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Susan
Guest
|
Posted:
Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject:
Re: Information Store issue |
|
|
then you should create multiple mailbox stores/storage groups, and it may be
necessary to utilize more servers...
"fakemsce" <fakemsce@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:97440739-8DC3-414F-832F-69B6AE74D1C8@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | This is Exchange 2000 however we will be upgrading to Exchange 2003.
Also we realize that putting quotas on each mail box would be benificial
however we would still be talking about a information store that would be
in
the terabytes.
"Susan" wrote:
what version Exchange? in Exchange 2000/2003, you can configure
multiple
storage groups/mailbox stores to keep the size of the store down...and
I
would say you need to configure reasonable mailbox limits, as well...
"fakemsce" <fakemsce@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C71C3EB-56F9-4510-B832-1D3453518559@microsoft.com...
We currently have a 200 GB information and only 350 people. In 2 years
we will be 1500 people and I'm guessing that the Information Store
might
get
a little larger.
We currently have a 2 node cluster setup and I'm wondering what would
be
the
best way to increase availablilty without having to many servers. I
also
need
some ideas when it comes to fault tolorance.
Personally I think we should outsource it however, the powers that be
want
it in house
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
|