chkdsk raid 5

[Guest Joshua Bright]

I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to copy large

pst files from our file and print server. This is also the case when I try

to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no support for networked psts). My

question is if it is ok to run chkdsk over a raid 5 volume? I have ran it in

read only mode, but am concerned about possible corruption. Any words to the

unwise on how to conduct preventative maintanance on a RAID 5 volume?

[Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Re: chkdsk raid 5

 

Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to copy

> large pst files from our file and print server. This is also the

> case when I try to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no support for

> networked psts). My question is if it is ok to run chkdsk over a

> raid 5 volume? I have ran it in read only mode, but am concerned

> about possible corruption. Any words to the unwise on how to conduct

> preventative maintanance on a RAID 5 volume?

 

Backing up a bit....do you have errors when you *don't* try to do this with

PST files?

[Guest Joshua Bright]

Re: chkdsk raid 5

 

It does not appear to have an effect on other files and folders, but other

files and folders are not 2G+.

 

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> > I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to copy

> > large pst files from our file and print server. This is also the

> > case when I try to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no support for

> > networked psts). My question is if it is ok to run chkdsk over a

> > raid 5 volume? I have ran it in read only mode, but am concerned

> > about possible corruption. Any words to the unwise on how to conduct

> > preventative maintanance on a RAID 5 volume?

>

> Backing up a bit....do you have errors when you *don't* try to do this with

> PST files?

>

>

>

[Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Re: chkdsk raid 5

 

Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> It does not appear to have an effect on other files and folders, but

> other files and folders are not 2G+.

 

Try working with some that *are*.

>

> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

>

>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>> I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to copy

>>> large pst files from our file and print server. This is also the

>>> case when I try to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no support for

>>> networked psts). My question is if it is ok to run chkdsk over a

>>> raid 5 volume? I have ran it in read only mode, but am concerned

>>> about possible corruption. Any words to the unwise on how to

>>> conduct preventative maintanance on a RAID 5 volume?

>>

>> Backing up a bit....do you have errors when you *don't* try to do

>> this with PST files?

[Guest Joshua Bright]

Re: chkdsk raid 5

 

This does seem to be related to PSTs only.

 

 

 

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> > It does not appear to have an effect on other files and folders, but

> > other files and folders are not 2G+.

>

> Try working with some that *are*.

> >

> > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

> >

> >> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> >>> I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to copy

> >>> large pst files from our file and print server. This is also the

> >>> case when I try to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no support for

> >>> networked psts). My question is if it is ok to run chkdsk over a

> >>> raid 5 volume? I have ran it in read only mode, but am concerned

> >>> about possible corruption. Any words to the unwise on how to

> >>> conduct preventative maintanance on a RAID 5 volume?

> >>

> >> Backing up a bit....do you have errors when you *don't* try to do

> >> this with PST files?

>

>

>

>

[Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Re: chkdsk raid 5

 

Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> This does seem to be related to PSTs only.

>

 

Ah. Well - you clearly already know that what you're doing is unsupported,

so I'm sure you understand that it's entirely possible that this won't work

& I can't really help you troubleshoot it. PST files don't belong on your

network at all. If you don't have Exchange server, I suggest you look into a

hosted Exchange solution.

 

See

http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/Why-PST-=-BAD-/q/Why-PST-=-BAD/qid/1209

 

Sorry :(

>

>

> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

>

>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>> It does not appear to have an effect on other files and folders, but

>>> other files and folders are not 2G+.

>>

>> Try working with some that *are*.

>>>

>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

>>>

>>>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>> I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to

>>>>> copy large pst files from our file and print server. This is

>>>>> also the case when I try to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no

>>>>> support for networked psts). My question is if it is ok to run

>>>>> chkdsk over a raid 5 volume? I have ran it in read only mode,

>>>>> but am concerned about possible corruption. Any words to the

>>>>> unwise on how to conduct preventative maintanance on a RAID 5

>>>>> volume?

>>>>

>>>> Backing up a bit....do you have errors when you *don't* try to do

>>>> this with PST files?

[Guest Joshua Bright]

Re: chkdsk raid 5

 

We do have an Exchange server (2003). To reduce the amount of space on our

information store, we encouraged users to archive data. Since this is a

business, we prefer to have that data backed up as opposed to sitting on the

user's hard drive. Hence, the reason why we have the PST on the file server.

This begs a different question, what position does MS take on mailbox size?

In the past, I have understood that anything over 1G or 2GB has been frowned

upon.

 

 

 

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> > This does seem to be related to PSTs only.

> >

>

> Ah. Well - you clearly already know that what you're doing is unsupported,

> so I'm sure you understand that it's entirely possible that this won't work

> & I can't really help you troubleshoot it. PST files don't belong on your

> network at all. If you don't have Exchange server, I suggest you look into a

> hosted Exchange solution.

>

> See

> http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/Why-PST-=-BAD-/q/Why-PST-=-BAD/qid/1209

>

> Sorry :(

> >

> >

> > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

> >

> >> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> >>> It does not appear to have an effect on other files and folders, but

> >>> other files and folders are not 2G+.

> >>

> >> Try working with some that *are*.

> >>>

> >>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

> >>>

> >>>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> >>>>> I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to

> >>>>> copy large pst files from our file and print server. This is

> >>>>> also the case when I try to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no

> >>>>> support for networked psts). My question is if it is ok to run

> >>>>> chkdsk over a raid 5 volume? I have ran it in read only mode,

> >>>>> but am concerned about possible corruption. Any words to the

> >>>>> unwise on how to conduct preventative maintanance on a RAID 5

> >>>>> volume?

> >>>>

> >>>> Backing up a bit....do you have errors when you *don't* try to do

> >>>> this with PST files?

>

>

>

>

[Guest Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Re: chkdsk raid 5

 

Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> We do have an Exchange server (2003). To reduce the amount of space

> on our information store, we encouraged users to archive data.

 

Users shouldn't have anything to do with archiving -

 

Since

> this is a business, we prefer to have that data backed up as opposed

> to sitting on the user's hard drive.

 

Sure. And if it's important, it belongs in managed storage - which PST files

are not....

> Hence, the reason why we have

> the PST on the file server.

 

.....and this is entirely unsupported, has huge performance problems, and can

lead to data corruption.

> This begs a different question, what

> position does MS take on mailbox size? In the past, I have understood

> that anything over 1G or 2GB has been frowned upon.

 

There's no official MS take on this issue at all. Your mailbox quotas

depend entirely on your own needs, capacity, ability to back up and restore.

Read the link on why PST files are a supremely bad way to accomplish

archiving. If you need archiving you need Exchange-side software to do it -

ideally that writes to SQL. I'd try posting in

microsoft.public.exchange.admin for more help & suggestions on archive

products (include your versions & SP levels of everything). And also try

searching msexchange.org. Good luck!

>

>

>

> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

>

>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>> This does seem to be related to PSTs only.

>>>

>>

>> Ah. Well - you clearly already know that what you're doing is

>> unsupported, so I'm sure you understand that it's entirely possible

>> that this won't work & I can't really help you troubleshoot it. PST

>> files don't belong on your network at all. If you don't have

>> Exchange server, I suggest you look into a hosted Exchange solution.

>>

>> See

>> http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/Why-PST-=-BAD-/q/Why-PST-=-BAD/qid/1209

>>

>> Sorry :(

>>>

>>>

>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

>>>

>>>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>> It does not appear to have an effect on other files and folders,

>>>>> but other files and folders are not 2G+.

>>>>

>>>> Try working with some that *are*.

>>>>>

>>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to

>>>>>>> copy large pst files from our file and print server. This is

>>>>>>> also the case when I try to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no

>>>>>>> support for networked psts). My question is if it is ok to run

>>>>>>> chkdsk over a raid 5 volume? I have ran it in read only mode,

>>>>>>> but am concerned about possible corruption. Any words to the

>>>>>>> unwise on how to conduct preventative maintanance on a RAID 5

>>>>>>> volume?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Backing up a bit....do you have errors when you *don't* try to do

>>>>>> this with PST files?