On Sat, 22 May 2010 15:25:59 +0000 (UTC), Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]
>Thanks Ace.... having ones memory/knowledge base expanded is a good thing.
>I read in the article referenced
>"The downside of enabling journaling is that it increases server load by
>a rather significant percentage and may require dedicated server resources,
>but this is something worth living with if it means complying with company
>policies, and / or regulatory requirements"
>So I am wondering if anyone has actually done this to either SBS 2003 or
>SBS 2008, and what were the resultant performance and space issues.
>Seems to me that in 2003 we should see a large hit in both with 4 GB RAM
>limit, and I'm guessing the journal does not conform to Single lnstance Storage,
>whereas in 2008, we could simply add more RAM and add a drive(s) to hold
>the journal, and Exchange 2007 does not do SIS anyway, iirc.
>So my conclusion is that it is better implimented in SBS 2008 (or rather
>Exchange 2007) than SBS 2003.
>Please post the resolution to your
>issue so others may benefit
>Get Your SBS Health Check at
I haven't looked into any performance hits with Journaling. Simply, I
just setup a mailbox, and set it as the Journal mailbox. That mailbox
definitely needs to be excluded from any mailbox storage limits. In
some cases in larger establishments, I'll create a separate Store
(database) for it, and only that mailbox, to reduce any possible
performance hits due to it being the the most active mailbox on the
However, taking it a step further, for medium or enterprise
scenarios, I like to recommend a third party archiving solution. Some
of them can get pricey, but the advantage is if the organization must
follow gov archiving guidelines, we have copies of everything, and it
allows users to search their own archive. And funny, I still set
Journaling on those installations as well. This way if anyone deletes
anything before it hits the archive system (depending on how it's
configured), we still have a copy.
I hope that helps.