Outlook .pst folder redirection possible?
-
Oh right, ha ha.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
Where I work nobody delete e-mails.
I try to explain the problem with the size in Exchange but they just don't care.Only way I found to reduce the Exchange Database was use Pst, we have a lot, and many are really big.
I put all of them in an old server, 12 years old, It works perfect, no problems since I use this system.
Why not just let Exchange get bigger? How much are we talking per user? Average and worst case?
We still use Exchange 2003 , actual database size is near to 200Gb, It's complicate recover backups with this size.
I hope in 2016 we move to Exchange Online and I can forget Pst and Exchange Backups with Backup Exec.
OMG 2003!! Exchange was so bad back then. It wasn't really usable until 2010. 2013 was a huge leap forward. 200GB is not that large for a single mailbox in 2013, but for a 2003 system that is problematic.
It's not so bad for a SMB, just one little problem in the 5 years I'm working here.
Now thanks to Outlook 2013 and 2016, they are not compatible with Exchange 2003, they are thinking in move the mail to Exchange Online.
-
It was the disaster of Exchange 2003 that drove us to Zimbra back in that era
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@iroal said:
Where I work nobody delete e-mails.
I try to explain the problem with the size in Exchange but they just don't care.Only way I found to reduce the Exchange Database was use Pst, we have a lot, and many are really big.
I put all of them in an old server, 12 years old, It works perfect, no problems since I use this system.
Why not just let Exchange get bigger? How much are we talking per user? Average and worst case?
We still use Exchange 2003 , actual database size is near to 200Gb, It's complicate recover backups with this size.
I hope in 2016 we move to Exchange Online and I can forget Pst and Exchange Backups with Backup Exec.
OMG 2003!! Exchange was so bad back then. It wasn't really usable until 2010. 2013 was a huge leap forward. 200GB is not that large for a single mailbox in 2013, but for a 2003 system that is problematic.
Amazed you don't have all kinds of problems with a mail store that large on 2003.
MS improved disk performance and a million other things with new versions of Exchange - damn you really want to move ASAP
-
For an entire store, 200GB isn't all that big. That's four mailboxes in the Hosted Exchange world
-
Not bad for an Exchange 2003
-
Not too shabby!
-
Our exchange team has us limited to 100MB mailboxes (we archive forever off of exchange though). and we still have 2.5TB of Mailboxes.
-
@Jason said:
Our exchange team has us limited to 100MB mailboxes (we archive forever off of exchange though). and we still have 2.5TB of Mailboxes.
lol - I do the same thing here.
But now I'm reconsidering that. And I'm looking at what it will take for us to move to O365.
-
I did not expected to get so many feedbacks. Go MangoLassi!
@Dashrender
For our environment it cost roughly 45K(it's 4.5K not 45K) to migrate all data out of our third party Exchange server. This include 5 years worth of compliance achived data.EDIT: Just went through the quote again and it was 4.5K. wow... 45K... LOL
-
@LAH3385 said:
I did not expected to get so many feedbacks. Go MangoLassi!
@Dashrender
For our environment it cost roughly 45K to migrate all data out of our third party Exchange server. This include 5 years worth of compliance achived data.Why so expensive? Do you need to migrate the archive data? Can you leave it where it is until it expires?
