|
exchange
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Method followed for assigning users to a mail store?Up until now we have only been utilizing one Mail store on our Exchange 2003
server. We have 2 storage groups configured with 2 mail stores in each. We are planning to increase the mailbox limitations for our users and as such we will need to spread them across the existing resources to support this. I would like to know, given all mailbox stores have the same limits assigned, how do you generally decide what users get assigned to what store/group? What practices/method do you follow - random, alphabetical, by department, etc? Is there a 'best practice' for this? Appreciate any feedback. Thanks. On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:37:56 +0900, "Barkley Bees"
<barkb***@nomail.com> wrote: >Up until now we have only been utilizing one Mail store on our Exchange 2003 We use a pseudo-random dispersion of new mailboxes over all servers in>server. We have 2 storage groups configured with 2 mail stores in each. We >are planning to increase the mailbox limitations for our users and as such >we will need to spread them across the existing resources to support this. > >I would like to know, given all mailbox stores have the same limits >assigned, how do you generally decide what users get assigned to what >store/group? What practices/method do you follow - random, alphabetical, by >department, etc? Is there a 'best practice' for this? > >Appreciate any feedback. Thanks. an AD site (minus a small number of excluded databases). That's scripted, not done by hand. For one-off new mailboxes we just left the person creating it pick one they like. :-) Works well no matter what the number of servers or databases. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP My much smaller customer chose to more or less evenly distribute mailboxes
across their five databases based on the first letter of their name. -- Show quoteHide quoteEd Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." .. "Rich Matheisen [MVP]" <richnews@rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message news:rojl455cbpfhcilkinjoj3grqnu73u81ss@4ax.com... > On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:37:56 +0900, "Barkley Bees" > <barkb***@nomail.com> wrote: > >>Up until now we have only been utilizing one Mail store on our Exchange >>2003 >>server. We have 2 storage groups configured with 2 mail stores in each. We >>are planning to increase the mailbox limitations for our users and as such >>we will need to spread them across the existing resources to support this. >> >>I would like to know, given all mailbox stores have the same limits >>assigned, how do you generally decide what users get assigned to what >>store/group? What practices/method do you follow - random, alphabetical, >>by >>department, etc? Is there a 'best practice' for this? >> >>Appreciate any feedback. Thanks. > > We use a pseudo-random dispersion of new mailboxes over all servers in > an AD site (minus a small number of excluded databases). That's > scripted, not done by hand. For one-off new mailboxes we just left the > person creating it pick one they like. :-) > > Works well no matter what the number of servers or databases. > --- > Rich Matheisen > MCSE+I, Exchange MVP Everybody has different approaches no right\wrong way really. I'm
pretty sure there's benefits and disadvantages in each method. I personally do by quota per store. For 2000/2003 it's a bit encumbersion to automate mailbox dispersion, 2007 makes it easier with powershell. James Chong (MVP) MCITP | EA | EMA; MCSE | M+, S+ Security+, Project+, ITIL msexchangetips.blogspot.com Show quoteHide quote On Jun 30, 9:37 pm, "Barkley Bees" <barkb***@nomail.com> wrote: > Up until now we have only been utilizing one Mail store on our Exchange 2003 > server. We have 2 storage groups configured with 2 mail stores in each. We > are planning to increase the mailbox limitations for our users and as such > we will need to spread them across the existing resources to support this.. > > I would like to know, given all mailbox stores have the same limits > assigned, how do you generally decide what users get assigned to what > store/group? What practices/method do you follow - random, alphabetical, by > department, etc? Is there a 'best practice' for this? > > Appreciate any feedback. Thanks. I had a customer who assigned mailboxes to different stores based on quota
and named the stores accordingly, e.g., 100MB-1, 100MB-2, 500MB-1, and so on. Exchange 2007 diminishes the effectiveness of this method just a bid because there is no longer the notion of mailbox store policy. The big drawback I see to this approach is that to maintain the system, to increase a user's quota you'd have to move his mailbox. -- Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." .. "jamestechman" <jamestech***@gmail.com> wrote in message Everybody has different approaches no right\wrong way really. I'mnews:8ff8b091-97a8-4ca6-84af-eb8cafdb3cdf@r33g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... pretty sure there's benefits and disadvantages in each method. I personally do by quota per store. For 2000/2003 it's a bit encumbersion to automate mailbox dispersion, 2007 makes it easier with powershell. James Chong (MVP) MCITP | EA | EMA; MCSE | M+, S+ Security+, Project+, ITIL msexchangetips.blogspot.com Show quoteHide quote On Jun 30, 9:37 pm, "Barkley Bees" <barkb***@nomail.com> wrote: > Up until now we have only been utilizing one Mail store on our Exchange > 2003 > server. We have 2 storage groups configured with 2 mail stores in each. We > are planning to increase the mailbox limitations for our users and as such > we will need to spread them across the existing resources to support this. > > I would like to know, given all mailbox stores have the same limits > assigned, how do you generally decide what users get assigned to what > store/group? What practices/method do you follow - random, alphabetical, > by > department, etc? Is there a 'best practice' for this? > > Appreciate any feedback. Thanks. 
Other interesting topics
Information Store (DB) & Transaction logs growing to fast/ to quic
User's Mailbox on Exchange reporting Larger that actual size. System Attendant OWA blocked by logon restriction hosted exchange email Exchange 2k3 backup and restore using ntbackup full backup is not flushing the logs Exchange 2003 - making space Offline Defrag error on Exch 2003 Ent server intermittent problem receiving email from specific company |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
