• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Exchange database size

D

Dabbler

#1
My client's Exchange server database recently exploded in size. Since the
handful of users in this small business use hosted POP3 and SMTP mail at
their domain I'm surprised by this development. I see a few pc's have their
inboxes in Exchange, the rest have mail in their local PST files. But in any
event there's no way the emails of 5 users could be generating 40GB worth of
space.

Any suggestions on solving this would be helpful. Exchange fans please spare
me the rant, I've heard it before. I just need to figure out a way to get
Exchange out of the picture.. it's just more trouble than it's worth in an
unmanaged environment. On a big server this would be moot, but they keep
running out of space ;)

Thanks!
 

My Computer

L

Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP]

#2
You did not say what version of SBS, if any, but the answer is the same for
SBS or normal exchange.

Not sure what you are asking. Do you want to not store individually popped
mail in the exchange mailbox? If so, just go to the file configuration in
OL, and make the local pst the default.

Or is there something else you want to do?

One no one is storing any messages in exchange, you can just ignore it.


-
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so others may benefit
-
Get Your SBS Health Check at
www.sbsbpa.com


> My client's Exchange server database recently exploded in size. Since
> the handful of users in this small business use hosted POP3 and SMTP
> mail at their domain I'm surprised by this development. I see a few
> pc's have their inboxes in Exchange, the rest have mail in their local
> PST files. But in any event there's no way the emails of 5 users could
> be generating 40GB worth of space.
>
> Any suggestions on solving this would be helpful. Exchange fans please
> spare me the rant, I've heard it before. I just need to figure out a
> way to get Exchange out of the picture.. it's just more trouble than
> it's worth in an unmanaged environment. On a big server this would be
> moot, but they keep running out of space ;)
>
> Thanks!
>
 

My Computer

A

Ace Fekay [MVP-DS, MCT]

#3
"Dabbler" <Dabbler@newsgroup> wrote in message news:8B368DAC-B3AC-43E1-BD1E-B97432544CEB@newsgroup

> My client's Exchange server database recently exploded in size. Since the
> handful of users in this small business use hosted POP3 and SMTP mail at
> their domain I'm surprised by this development. I see a few pc's have their
> inboxes in Exchange, the rest have mail in their local PST files. But in any
> event there's no way the emails of 5 users could be generating 40GB worth of
> space.
>
> Any suggestions on solving this would be helpful. Exchange fans please spare
> me the rant, I've heard it before. I just need to figure out a way to get
> Exchange out of the picture.. it's just more trouble than it's worth in an
> unmanaged environment. On a big server this would be moot, but they keep
> running out of space ;)
>
> Thanks!

As already asked, what version of SBS is this? Or is this SBS?

Curious, what did you look at to determine the database size? Windows Explorer, or did you look at the mailboxes being used in the ESM? If Windows Explorer, does that include the transaction log files, too?

Are you performing regular backups? If so, are there any errors reported, such as if the backups havbe completed or not? Reason why I ask is a good full backup will purge the transaction logs. If the logs are growing, that is if that is included in your 40GB usage assessment, if you are ascertaining this by using Windows Explorer. If the logs aren't being purged, it either means the backups are failing, or you are not running backups.

Are there any Exchange or backup related errors in the Application Log? if so, please post the EventID# and SOURCE name.


--
Ace

This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and confers no rights.

Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution.

Ace Fekay, MVP, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE & MCSA 2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
Microsoft Certified Trainer
Microsoft MVP - Directory Services

If you feel this is an urgent issue and require immediate assistance, please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check http://support.microsoft.com for regional support phone numbers.
 

My Computer

C

Cliff Galiher - MVP

#4
Here is my short answer:

Exchange is a server product that requires management. If this is a truly
unmanaged environment then SBS is the wrong tool for the job and exchange
will continue to cause problems for you down the road.

For the record, I love exchange, but you don't want fanboy-ism, so I'm being
blunt: Go buy a copy of Windows Server 2008 R2, migrate off of SBS, and
make your life easier. Incidentally, doing so will eliminate that large
database too, thus actually solving the issue you are describing.

Thanks,

-Cliff


"Dabbler" <Dabbler@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:8B368DAC-B3AC-43E1-BD1E-B97432544CEB@newsgroup

> My client's Exchange server database recently exploded in size. Since the
> handful of users in this small business use hosted POP3 and SMTP mail at
> their domain I'm surprised by this development. I see a few pc's have
> their
> inboxes in Exchange, the rest have mail in their local PST files. But in
> any
> event there's no way the emails of 5 users could be generating 40GB worth
> of
> space.
>
> Any suggestions on solving this would be helpful. Exchange fans please
> spare
> me the rant, I've heard it before. I just need to figure out a way to get
> Exchange out of the picture.. it's just more trouble than it's worth in an
> unmanaged environment. On a big server this would be moot, but they keep
> running out of space ;)
>
> Thanks!
 

My Computer

#5
Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP] wrote:

> Well I hate to be blunt
> but if they don't want to manage their server
> they shouldn't have one...
You're on a loser here, Russ. If Microsoft have any claim to fame, it's
in successfully hiding the computer from the non-technical user. SBS is
a reasonable attempt to achieve this at server level.

>
> I mean that's like having a car and not changing the oil?
> Don't you think?
Yes, I do. How many car owners do you know who:

a) change the oil themselves
b) want anything to do with changing the oil

I started driving when the oil change interval was three months. For
some years now, it has been twelve or more. Why is that, do you think?

>
> I know this may sound Cruel
> But this is Business..
> Isn't it?
>
> A Job done, IMO is only worth doing, If done right!
Exchange is an enterprise, no, a *government*-sized answer to a
question, fitted to a server product aimed at organisations with 75 or
fewer users and no in-house IT staff. It's not a good match, but it's
what Microsoft had lying around.

If there's one thing Microsoft doesn't do well, it's to produce more
than one version of a given type of software. One size fits all, apart
from licence tweaking to segment the market. It doesn't make a
low-maintenance mail server for ten users, and many people are just not
willing to put up with Exchange. Exchange is fine while it Just Works,
and when it doesn't, it bites hard.

--
Joe
 

My Computer

K

kj [SBS MVP]

#6
Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP] wrote:

> I actually think SBS works very well
> And if you've supported business as long as I have
> you will know there is NOT a one size fits all in any business.
>
> As far as Exchange works very well
> and it's honestly Easy to keep working!
> (REALLY!!!)
>
> However,
> Just like a Car, when it works it works great
> and when it's broken, it's really BROKEN
> (If you don't believe this have you worked on a car lately?)
>
> I don't change the timing chain or water pump in my car either.
> I take them to a professional.
>
> I could but that would be stupid.
>
> Just like a server needs professional help!
> You wouldn't take you car to someone who's walking down the street
> and says, yup, I know how to work on cars, I saw a Youtube video on
> it. and I've changed the spark plug on my lawnmower.
>
> Problem I see (once a month at least)
> is someone repairing a server that should NOT be repairing or
> maintaining it...
> No one checks references, it's the brother in law's neighbors friend
> who knows a guy.
>
> My point is, if you can't afford to maintain a car, with oil changes
> insurance gas etc you shouldn't have one.
> If you can't afford a server with service updates, parts, labor etc.
> you shouldn't have one either.
>
> There is Absolutely NO reason his exchange should be 40GB with 5
> people. No reason...
> Sorry
> Russ
Joe,

Actually, there's many a reason.... but no *good* reason. Setup and
minimally managed by someone with even light reasonable computer skill and
the ability to follow good practices and guidance, an SBS server provides
superior business value to organizations of this scale.

....but a 5 user / 40gb exchange database is evidence to the contrary.
Someone disabled the per mailbox quotas.


Even if the oil is changed, a driver without vision is going to hit
something or someone.

Basic care and feeding keeps a properly configed SBS server running for
years. Taking the in product designed safties off is just asking for it.
Then you want to blame the product when it rolls over????


>
>
>
> "Joe" <joe@newsgroup> wrote in message
> news:elFcDWTxKHA.3896@newsgroup

>> Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP] wrote:

>>> Well I hate to be blunt
>>> but if they don't want to manage their server
>>> they shouldn't have one...
>>
>> You're on a loser here, Russ. If Microsoft have any claim to fame,
>> it's in successfully hiding the computer from the non-technical
>> user. SBS is a reasonable attempt to achieve this at server level.
>>

>>>
>>> I mean that's like having a car and not changing the oil?
>>> Don't you think?
>>
>> Yes, I do. How many car owners do you know who:
>>
>> a) change the oil themselves
>> b) want anything to do with changing the oil
>>
>> I started driving when the oil change interval was three months. For
>> some years now, it has been twelve or more. Why is that, do you
>> think?

>>>
>>> I know this may sound Cruel
>>> But this is Business..
>>> Isn't it?
>>>
>>> A Job done, IMO is only worth doing, If done right!
>>
>> Exchange is an enterprise, no, a *government*-sized answer to a
>> question, fitted to a server product aimed at organisations with 75
>> or fewer users and no in-house IT staff. It's not a good match, but
>> it's what Microsoft had lying around.
>>
>> If there's one thing Microsoft doesn't do well, it's to produce more
>> than one version of a given type of software. One size fits all,
>> apart from licence tweaking to segment the market. It doesn't make a
>> low-maintenance mail server for ten users, and many people are just
>> not willing to put up with Exchange. Exchange is fine while it Just
>> Works, and when it doesn't, it bites hard.
>>
>> --
>> Joe
--
/kj
 

My Computer

#7
kj [SBS MVP] wrote: Slightly muddled attributions going on, I was just answering Russ.

>
> Actually, there's many a reason.... but no *good* reason. Setup and
> minimally managed by someone with even light reasonable computer skill and
> the ability to follow good practices and guidance, an SBS server provides
> superior business value to organizations of this scale.
I don't believe I argued otherwise.

>
> ...but a 5 user / 40gb exchange database is evidence to the contrary.
> Someone disabled the per mailbox quotas.
Indeed. But I don't think it was established whether that sudden size
increase was due to genuine email or some real cause for concern. That
was actually the original question.

>
>
> Even if the oil is changed, a driver without vision is going to hit
> something or someone.
>
> Basic care and feeding keeps a properly configed SBS server running for
> years. Taking the in product designed safties off is just asking for it.
> Then you want to blame the product when it rolls over????
>
>
Not at all, I was suggesting that SBS *is* a good attempt at a server
for small/non-technical people/organisations, but that Exchange was
about the weakest link in the chain, being somewhat over-the-top for the
SBS market.

My personal experience, not too wide as I'm not primarily an IT person,
is that the bulk of truly SBS problems (not general networking issues)
lead back to Exchange and Outlook. The fit-and-forget server, which is
undoubtedly where Microsoft is heading for the home and small business
market, needs something a little less complex. I'm aware of the benefits
of using a transaction-rollback database server to store email, I just
don't think they outweigh the disadvantages of complexity and fragility
in the typical SBS environment.

--
Joe
 

My Computer

K

kj [SBS MVP]

#8
Joe wrote:

> kj [SBS MVP] wrote:

>>
>> Joe,
>
> Slightly muddled attributions going on, I was just answering Russ.
>

>>
>> Actually, there's many a reason.... but no *good* reason. Setup and
>> minimally managed by someone with even light reasonable computer
>> skill and the ability to follow good practices and guidance, an SBS
>> server provides superior business value to organizations of this
>> scale.
>
> I don't believe I argued otherwise.
>

>>
>> ...but a 5 user / 40gb exchange database is evidence to the contrary.
>> Someone disabled the per mailbox quotas.
>
> Indeed. But I don't think it was established whether that sudden size
> increase was due to genuine email or some real cause for concern. That
> was actually the original question.

>>
>>
>> Even if the oil is changed, a driver without vision is going to hit
>> something or someone.
>>
>> Basic care and feeding keeps a properly configed SBS server running
>> for years. Taking the in product designed safties off is just asking
>> for it. Then you want to blame the product when it rolls over????
>>
>>
> Not at all, I was suggesting that SBS *is* a good attempt at a server
> for small/non-technical people/organisations, but that Exchange was
> about the weakest link in the chain, being somewhat over-the-top for
> the SBS market.
It's a long chain and DB's are complex. What is "over the top" , expecting a
small business to not follow a few simple practices?


>
> My personal experience, not too wide as I'm not primarily an IT
> person, is that the bulk of truly SBS problems (not general
> networking issues) lead back to Exchange and Outlook. The
> fit-and-forget server, which is undoubtedly where Microsoft is
> heading for the home and small business market, needs something a
> little less complex. I'm aware of the benefits of using a
> transaction-rollback database server to store email, I just don't
> think they outweigh the disadvantages of complexity and fragility in
> the typical SBS environment.
Hosted and cloud services target this for the 'I can't be bothered with
that' clientel having more money than time/IT skills.


But perhaps I'm just missing your point at how a 40GB 5 user DB becomes
something other than a bad management practice problem.



--
/kj
 

My Computer

#9
kj [SBS MVP] wrote:

>
>
> But perhaps I'm just missing your point at how a 40GB 5 user DB becomes
> something other than a bad management practice problem.
>
>
>
We're at cross purposes here, that wasn't my point, but it *was* the
question. Let me quote the OP:

"My client's Exchange server database recently exploded in size. Since
the handful of users in this small business use hosted POP3 and SMTP
mail at their domain I'm surprised by this development. I see a few
pc's have their inboxes in Exchange, the rest have mail in their local
PST files. But in any event there's no way the emails of 5 users could
be generating 40GB worth of space."

Now, he may not be aware that all five users have suddenly discovered
how to download films and send them to each other, but the original
question, as I read it, was 'is there any other way this can happen?',
or perhaps 'Is there any known way for the database engine to hiccup and
bloat itself, and need to be repaired?' As far as I can see, nobody
offered personal experiences of any other reason for suddenly large
mailboxes than email quantity.

But the OP didn't suggest that he didn't know about mailbox quotas,
which obviously must have been changed from default values if this 40GB
really is email. In fact as far as I recall, if this is SBS2003, someone
would need to have made a registry change to allow this capacity. The
discussion centred on how SBS needs at least some attention. I hadn't
any answer to the original question, but as the discussion had wandered
off-topic, at this point I suggested that most of the attention SBS
needs concerns Exchange, and that perhaps it isn't a good match for
where Microsoft is aiming SBS. It's not just a matter of a mailbox
quota, which is a single tweak in a dialog box, it's about keeping it
happy, dealing with corrupt emails and a sulking Outlook, needing to
muck about creating storage groups and mounting databases to recover
mailboxes from backup, etc.

That's all. Nothing about good or bad management, just about minimising
the *need* for management, which is a direction in which Microsoft has
been heading for decades. I'm giving them free advice that Exchange is a
good place to look for improvement on that score. Let me put it another
way: if Windows Home Server were to acquire native mail server
capabilities, would/should it be Exchange?

--
Joe
 

My Computer

R

Russ SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]

#10
"Joe" <joe@newsgroup> wrote in message
news:uEi5mngxKHA.1548@newsgroup

> if Windows Home Server were to acquire native mail server capabilities,
> would/should it be Exchange?
> Joe
IMO There would be no need to put a Native mail server in WHS.
However if there was, yes. (Why Because it works)
But it will never happen....
Russ

--
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
Question or Second Opinion - www.PersonalITConsultant.com
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com
http://www.twitter.com/RussellGrover
 

My Computer

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)