Guest Harold Naparst Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 What is the meaning of the 75 GB storage limit in Windows Server 2003 R2? Does that mean that the sum of the whole company's mail in Exchange, files, etc cannot exceed 75 GB? Seems absurd. An average user has about 5 GB of mail, so this would mean that if the company exceeds 15 people, we can't use this product or would need to buy more servers. Harold
Guest greatbarrier86 Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 RE: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 Are you sure it doesnt mean 1 file cannot be larger than 75GB? I'm certain that what you are writing has to be incorrect. "Harold Naparst" wrote: > What is the meaning of the 75 GB storage limit in Windows Server 2003 R2? > Does that mean that the sum of the whole company's mail in Exchange, files, > etc cannot exceed 75 GB? Seems absurd. An average user has about 5 GB of > mail, so this would mean that if the company exceeds 15 people, we can't use > this product or would need to buy more servers. > > Harold
Guest Harold Naparst Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 RE: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 Probing a bit more, I found out that it means that a single database cannot exceed 75 gb. There are two databases in Exchange Standard and SBS: The mailbox database, which is one database for all users. The other database is for public folders, files and such. So the upshot is that the sum of everyone's email cannot exceed 75GB. That is a fact. Apparently, until recently, the number used to be 16GB, if you can imagine that. Now, with Exchange SP2, Microsoft is making a big deal about how they have increased the limit to 75 GB, which is still absurd. We operate a marketing organization, and all our emails include pictures. Every user has a tremendous amount of email. Basically, you have to buy Exchange Enterprise, which has no limits. "greatbarrier86" wrote: > Are you sure it doesnt mean 1 file cannot be larger than 75GB? I'm certain > that what you are writing has to be incorrect. > > "Harold Naparst" wrote: > > > What is the meaning of the 75 GB storage limit in Windows Server 2003 R2? > > Does that mean that the sum of the whole company's mail in Exchange, files, > > etc cannot exceed 75 GB? Seems absurd. An average user has about 5 GB of > > mail, so this would mean that if the company exceeds 15 people, we can't use > > this product or would need to buy more servers. > > > > Harold
Guest Hank Arnold (MVP) Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 In-line -- Regards, Hank Arnold Microsoft MVP Windows Server - Directory Services Harold Naparst wrote: > Probing a bit more, I found out that it means that a single database > cannot exceed 75 gb. There are two databases in Exchange Standard and SBS: > The mailbox database, which is one database for all users. > The other database is for public folders, files and such. If you had read the specs for the software, you would have realized that was a limitation of the Standard Edition. > > So the upshot is that the sum of everyone's email cannot exceed 75GB. > That is a fact. Apparently, until recently, the number used to be 16GB, > if you can imagine that. I can imagine it... A lot of organizations don't need huge e-mail databases.... > > Now, with Exchange SP2, Microsoft is making a big deal about how they > have increased the limit to 75 GB, which is still absurd. Why is that absurd? that is a huge amount of data and meets the requirements of many, if not most, organizations. >................................................. We operate a marketing > organization, and all our emails include pictures. Every user has a > tremendous > amount of email. > > Basically, you have to buy Exchange Enterprise, which has no limits. Which is what you should have bought in the first place (and would have if you had read the specs).... > > > > "greatbarrier86" wrote: > >> Are you sure it doesnt mean 1 file cannot be larger than 75GB? I'm certain >> that what you are writing has to be incorrect. >> >> "Harold Naparst" wrote: >> >>> What is the meaning of the 75 GB storage limit in Windows Server 2003 R2? >>> Does that mean that the sum of the whole company's mail in Exchange, files, >>> etc cannot exceed 75 GB? Seems absurd. An average user has about 5 GB of >>> mail, so this would mean that if the company exceeds 15 people, we can't use >>> this product or would need to buy more servers. >>> >>> Harold
Guest Leythos Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 RE: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 In article <4797A960-51AE-4D33-87DE-F22938BE95F8@microsoft.com>, HaroldNaparst@discussions.microsoft.com says... > Now, with Exchange SP2, Microsoft is making a big deal about how they > have increased the limit to 75 GB, which is still absurd. We operate a > marketing > organization, and all our emails include pictures. Every user has a > tremendous > amount of email. Then you should be using PDF's and links to your website instead of sending BIG emails. A properly designed solution would put minimal load on your email system and still provide access to all of your marketing materials. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest Harold Naparst Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 RE: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 > Then you should be using PDF's and links to your website instead of > sending BIG emails. It is not realistic to control everyone's behavior in the company, as well as the people sending us mail. The IT department can hardly attempt to educate users about how to create PDF files from their rasterized graphics files or upload the pictures to a server and just send the links. I agree that there are ways to reduce the size of outgoing emails, but users are not likely to prioritize such efforts. Many users prefer to mail attachments or important files to themselves instead of storing them in their home directories. They find it easier to search within Outlook for what they are looking for rather than in the file manager. Overall, Outlook is replacing the filesystem. Sometimes they don't know what a file is called, but they know who sent it to them. Or a person asks them for the file that they sent two weeks ago. It is just easier to keep the file with the email. I find it insulting that Microsoft would place limits in their software like this. It is a good argument for open source. Google provides 7 GB of space. So 75 GB would work for about a 10 person company, if that company doesn't plan on growing. > A properly designed solution would put minimal load on your email system > and still provide access to all of your marketing materials. Hard to see how a better software design could change users behavior if this is what you are saying.
Guest Leythos Posted December 31, 2007 Posted December 31, 2007 RE: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 In article <AF72AFCB-CA3D-4E9F-867E-A12185FF4165@microsoft.com>, HaroldNaparst@discussions.microsoft.com says... > > > > Then you should be using PDF's and links to your website instead of > > sending BIG emails. > > It is not realistic to control everyone's behavior in the company, > as well as the people sending us mail. The IT department can hardly > attempt to educate users about how to create PDF files from their > rasterized graphics files or upload the pictures to a server and just send > the links. > > I agree that there are ways to reduce the size of outgoing emails, but > users are not likely to prioritize such efforts. Many users prefer to mail > attachments or important files to themselves instead of storing them in > their home directories. They find it easier to search within Outlook for > what they are looking for rather than in the file manager. > > Overall, Outlook is replacing the filesystem. Sometimes they don't > know what a file is called, but they know who sent it to them. Or a person > asks them for the file that they sent two weeks ago. It is just easier > to keep the file with the email. > > I find it insulting that Microsoft would place limits in their software > like this. It is a good argument for open source. I find it insulting that with the limits being known and documented, that any respectable IT person would suggest that MS is being unreasonable, instead of just owning up to having a bad business process or methodology - you're there to fix things, not continue broken practices. Since the bumped it from 16GB to 75GB it's been even more valuable to businesses that properly trained their employees and setup automatic limits. Outlook at NOT become a file system and will never replace one, except for the uneducated people. > Google provides 7 GB of space. So 75 GB would work for about a > 10 person company, if that company doesn't plan on growing. And most external companies let you purchase well more than that - A base package with Road Runner Business class includes 100GB, and GoDaddy also offers more storage if needed. No matter how you look at it, your method is bad and needs to be changed. > > A properly designed solution would put minimal load on your email system > > and still provide access to all of your marketing materials. > > Hard to see how a better software design could change users behavior > if this is what you are saying. Not software, better understanding and planning around such a critical part of your business. Exchange was never a solution for your needs, it the wrong solution, completely. Your solution is to change the broken business process or pay for a larger scale version of Exchange and then all the extra space you will need - and you will still have the same problem. You need to change the business process to fit what you are doing, that's the first place to start - and yes, it means training people to stop being a bad method. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest Harold Naparst Posted January 1, 2008 Posted January 1, 2008 RE: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 I can see how if the company set, say a 2 GB limit on mail, then when they run out of space they would ask for an increase. Then, what are you suggesting? How exactly would a user upload their pictures to the company extranet for public access? Or perhaps you mean they would upload to an intranet, but then the external recipient could not access it. I think that what would happen is this: They would use their personal hotmail account to send the mail with the attachment. In fact, they would probably abandon Exchange altogether because they don't understand this upload/link process you are talking about. I don't even understand it. We are in the marketing business, not in the business of training users to modify their behavior so it fits the limits of the software. It actually is not that easy to find out what the limits on Exchange Standard are, by the way. If you go through the product sheets, it just has a lot of statements about how it is appropriate for SMEs, but no real description of what the limits are. That you find out when you install the product. But, that having been said, if there is in fact a way to make the product work for us, I'm all ears. Maybe attachments can be automatically stripped out, uploaded to a public web service, and replaced by links.
Guest Terry Drewes Posted January 1, 2008 Posted January 1, 2008 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 Maybe a 3rd party tool, to auto save attachments? http://www.techhit.com/ezdetach/ BTW... we use their MessageSave product for archiving, and it works great! Ciao! ~Terry Harold Naparst wrote: > I can see how if the company set, say a 2 GB limit on mail, > then when they run out of space they would ask for an increase. > > Then, what are you suggesting? How exactly would a user upload > their pictures to the company extranet for public access? > Or perhaps you mean they would upload to an intranet, but then > the external recipient could not access it. > > I think that what would happen is this: They would use their > personal hotmail account to send the mail with the attachment. > In fact, they would probably abandon Exchange altogether because > they don't understand this upload/link process you are talking about. > I don't even understand it. > > We are in the marketing business, not in the business of > training users to modify their behavior so it fits the limits of the > software. > > It actually is not that easy to find out what the limits on > Exchange Standard are, by the way. If you go through the > product sheets, it just has a lot of statements about how it is appropriate > for SMEs, but no real description of what the limits are. That you > find out when you install the product. > > But, that having been said, if there is in fact a way to make the > product work for us, I'm all ears. Maybe attachments can be automatically > stripped out, uploaded to a public web service, and replaced by links. > >
Guest - Michel Posted January 2, 2008 Posted January 2, 2008 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 Funny that there are quite a few serious responds to this posting. Basically Harold, you sound your CEO who doesn't understand IT or your neighbour I-hate-Microsoft-by-definition-please-give-me-open-source-kid. Email is NOT a file archiving tool. If your users can mail themselves mails with attachments of a particular size, review your mail gateway software and harden policies. Let them bring a (of course encrypted) memory stick to the IT department that will place the data on the network if that is actually business related and necessary (of course USB ports are locked down if you did your job well, so your users need the iT dept for that). Second, buy a arching tool like Enterprise Vault that will nicely archive email and attachments out of the Exchange databases into an external "database". Third, if your Exchange server is really that heavy used it must be quite mission critical. I wonder what your Recovery Time Objectives and Recovery Point Objectives are for the server. Wish you good luck restoring a database (or parts of that) from 75GB in a reasonable timeframe... Last: perhaps you should talk to some real experts before you start posting messages like you did... Kind regards, Michel "Terry Drewes" wrote: > Maybe a 3rd party tool, to auto save attachments? > http://www.techhit.com/ezdetach/ > > BTW... we use their MessageSave product for archiving, and it works great! > > > Ciao! > ~Terry > > > Harold Naparst wrote: > > I can see how if the company set, say a 2 GB limit on mail, > > then when they run out of space they would ask for an increase. > > > > Then, what are you suggesting? How exactly would a user upload > > their pictures to the company extranet for public access? > > Or perhaps you mean they would upload to an intranet, but then > > the external recipient could not access it. > > > > I think that what would happen is this: They would use their > > personal hotmail account to send the mail with the attachment. > > In fact, they would probably abandon Exchange altogether because > > they don't understand this upload/link process you are talking about. > > I don't even understand it. > > > > We are in the marketing business, not in the business of > > training users to modify their behavior so it fits the limits of the > > software. > > > > It actually is not that easy to find out what the limits on > > Exchange Standard are, by the way. If you go through the > > product sheets, it just has a lot of statements about how it is appropriate > > for SMEs, but no real description of what the limits are. That you > > find out when you install the product. > > > > But, that having been said, if there is in fact a way to make the > > product work for us, I'm all ears. Maybe attachments can be automatically > > stripped out, uploaded to a public web service, and replaced by links. > > > > >
Guest DevilsPGD Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 In message <MPG.21e33c5f4ab7d9ec989933@Adfree.usenet.com> Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote: >Outlook at NOT become a file system and will never replace one, except >for the uneducated people. Also known as "end users", and more often then not "upper management" They don't want to know why it's a bad idea, they just want it to work and expect IT to figure it out. *shrugs* I see both sides.
Guest Leythos Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 In article <720pn39q79p71tru0l4tvnt7gitcb2phin@4ax.com>, spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says... > In message <MPG.21e33c5f4ab7d9ec989933@Adfree.usenet.com> Leythos > <void@nowhere.lan> wrote: > > >Outlook at NOT become a file system and will never replace one, except > >for the uneducated people. > > Also known as "end users", and more often then not "upper management" > > They don't want to know why it's a bad idea, they just want it to work > and expect IT to figure it out. > > *shrugs* > > I see both sides. You can see BOTH sides, but if you really can, then you should be explaining to them how it really is, not letting them continue down their path of ills. -- Leythos - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
Guest Shannon Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 You need to develop an email policy and set quotas for mailbox size and retention time. This will keep your size down to a reasonable limit. All items too large or beyond retention time can be moved to a .pst file and still accessed in outlook the same as they currently access them now, just provides a method for archiving. The current users are definately out of control if they maintain an average mailbox size of 5Gb. That is absurd. Exchange is not designed to replace your file system and is crazy to think that it will. You really need to update your knowledge on this subject and come back. "Leythos" wrote: > In article <720pn39q79p71tru0l4tvnt7gitcb2phin@4ax.com>, > spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net says... > > In message <MPG.21e33c5f4ab7d9ec989933@Adfree.usenet.com> Leythos > > <void@nowhere.lan> wrote: > > > > >Outlook at NOT become a file system and will never replace one, except > > >for the uneducated people. > > > > Also known as "end users", and more often then not "upper management" > > > > They don't want to know why it's a bad idea, they just want it to work > > and expect IT to figure it out. > > > > *shrugs* > > > > I see both sides. > > You can see BOTH sides, but if you really can, then you should be > explaining to them how it really is, not letting them continue down > their path of ills. > > -- > > Leythos > - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. > - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a > drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist" > spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address) >
Guest DevilsPGD Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 In message <1B665769-6862-4221-8792-E364A72DB6FA@microsoft.com> Shannon <Shannon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >You need to develop an email policy and set quotas for mailbox size and >retention time. This will keep your size down to a reasonable limit. All >items too large or beyond retention time can be moved to a .pst file and >still accessed in outlook the same as they currently access them now, just >provides a method for archiving. The current users are definately out of >control if they maintain an average mailbox size of 5Gb. That is absurd. >Exchange is not designed to replace your file system and is crazy to think >that it will. You really need to update your knowledge on this subject and >come back. PST files are a horrible solution as that requires some method of keeping PST files backed up. It also means that data stored in a PST is not available remotely, unless the user happens to copy their PSTs with them to a laptop (and frankly, not everyone carries laptops, many users work from their home PCs, so moving gigabyte sized PSTs is not only wasteful, but it drastically increases the odds that one of those PCs will be compromised) I don't know about your company, but corporate policy at $DAYJOB is that only data on servers is backed up, PCs are considered expendable, and we do not attempt to recover data from workstations except in extraordinary cases. From a management point of view, it's far more effective to have users leave mail on the mail server, store files on the file servers, both of which have a high level of redundancy (as well as off-site backups). Local storage simply isn't acceptable. Storing PSTs on a LAN drive would appear to be an ideal fix, except that it is explicitly not supported by Microsoft. All that being said, I don't run a mail server which uses a single monolithic database, so I will never be in a position of having to recover a 70GB+ mail database -- Exchange's own design limitations may make this design impractical in Exchange, but it certainly works in several corporations where I've consulted over the years. Average mailbox side is between 1GB-2GB, with many users archiving damn near everything. We do not use email as a replacement for the file system, but it's not at all uncommon for large files to be emailed in and out of the organization -- Internally, we generally use file shares.
Guest Shannon Posted January 5, 2008 Posted January 5, 2008 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 I agree, .pst files are a mess and can lead to problems, but i was simply suggesting it as a way for him to start to get a grip on his email issues. My company does not allow for the use of pst files, anything in the email account of 60 days old is removed automatically, and mailboxes of size limits. Until he takes control of his email policy he will not solve the problem. "DevilsPGD" wrote: > In message <1B665769-6862-4221-8792-E364A72DB6FA@microsoft.com> Shannon > <Shannon@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > >You need to develop an email policy and set quotas for mailbox size and > >retention time. This will keep your size down to a reasonable limit. All > >items too large or beyond retention time can be moved to a .pst file and > >still accessed in outlook the same as they currently access them now, just > >provides a method for archiving. The current users are definately out of > >control if they maintain an average mailbox size of 5Gb. That is absurd. > >Exchange is not designed to replace your file system and is crazy to think > >that it will. You really need to update your knowledge on this subject and > >come back. > > PST files are a horrible solution as that requires some method of > keeping PST files backed up. It also means that data stored in a PST is > not available remotely, unless the user happens to copy their PSTs with > them to a laptop (and frankly, not everyone carries laptops, many users > work from their home PCs, so moving gigabyte sized PSTs is not only > wasteful, but it drastically increases the odds that one of those PCs > will be compromised) > > I don't know about your company, but corporate policy at $DAYJOB is that > only data on servers is backed up, PCs are considered expendable, and we > do not attempt to recover data from workstations except in extraordinary > cases. > > From a management point of view, it's far more effective to have users > leave mail on the mail server, store files on the file servers, both of > which have a high level of redundancy (as well as off-site backups). > Local storage simply isn't acceptable. > > Storing PSTs on a LAN drive would appear to be an ideal fix, except that > it is explicitly not supported by Microsoft. > > All that being said, I don't run a mail server which uses a single > monolithic database, so I will never be in a position of having to > recover a 70GB+ mail database -- Exchange's own design limitations may > make this design impractical in Exchange, but it certainly works in > several corporations where I've consulted over the years. > > Average mailbox side is between 1GB-2GB, with many users archiving damn > near everything. We do not use email as a replacement for the file > system, but it's not at all uncommon for large files to be emailed in > and out of the organization -- Internally, we generally use file shares. >
Guest jeanjasons@lycos.com Posted January 15, 2008 Posted January 15, 2008 Re: 75 GB limit in Windows Server 2003 R2 On 5 jan, 06:30, Shannon <Shan...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > I agree, .pst files are a mess and can lead to problems, but i was simply > suggesting it as a way for him to start to get a grip on his email issues. > My company does not allow for the use of pst files, anything in the email > account of 60 days old is removed automatically, and mailboxes of size > limits. Until he takes control of his email policy he will not solve the > problem. > > "DevilsPGD" wrote: > > In message <1B665769-6862-4221-8792-E364A72DB...@microsoft.com> Shannon > > <Shan...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > > > >You need to develop an email policy and set quotas for mailbox size and > > >retention time. This will keep your size down to a reasonablelimit. All > > >items too large or beyond retention time can be moved to a .pst file and > > >still accessed in outlook the same as they currently access them now, just > > >provides a method for archiving. The current users are definately out of > > >control if they maintain an average mailbox size of 5Gb. That is absurd. > > >Exchange is not designed to replace your file system and is crazy to think > > >that it will. You really need to update your knowledge on this subject and > > >come back. > > > PST files are a horrible solution as that requires some method of > > keeping PST files backed up. It also means that data stored in a PST is > > not available remotely, unless the user happens to copy their PSTs with > > them to a laptop (and frankly, not everyone carries laptops, many users > > work from their home PCs, so moving gigabyte sized PSTs is not only > > wasteful, but it drastically increases the odds that one of those PCs > > will be compromised) > > > I don't know about your company, but corporate policy at $DAYJOB is that > > only data on servers is backed up, PCs are considered expendable, and we > > do not attempt to recover data from workstations except in extraordinary > > cases. > > > From a management point of view, it's far more effective to have users > > leave mail on the mailserver, store files on the file servers, both of > > which have a high level of redundancy (as well as off-site backups). > > Local storage simply isn't acceptable. > > > Storing PSTs on a LAN drive would appear to be an ideal fix, except that > > it is explicitly not supported by Microsoft. > > > All that being said, I don't run a mailserverwhich uses a single > > monolithic database, so I will never be in a position of having to > > recover a 70GB+ mail database -- Exchange's own design limitations may > > make this design impractical in Exchange, but it certainly works in > > several corporations where I've consulted over the years. > > > Average mailbox side is between 1GB-2GB, with many users archiving damn > > near everything. We do not use email as a replacement for the file > > system, but it's not at all uncommon for large files to be emailed in > > and out of the organization -- Internally, we generally use file shares. I agree to, pst files are horror. And of course it stupid to archive 70GB+ in a mail database. But it's far too simple to delete all email after 60 days! You need to give tools to the users to archive email they want to keep. Or do they print them out? I hope not. How do you archive email that will be deleted after 60 days? We've choosen to install the add in Outlook MailToFile (http://www.mailtofile.com) and this solved all exchange size and backup problems. All users archive their email as msg file in the directory of their project. The Exchange database changed in thee weeks from 30 GB to 4 GB! And the directory didn't grow that much. Besides we did have a lot of old projects. All email and Worddocuments are now archived together and moved to a second archive server. This server doesn't need the same backup rules as our main file servers.
Recommended Posts