none
Exchange 2010\Outlook 2010 - Mailbox size best practice?

    Question

  • I am implementing an Exchange 2010\Outlook 2010 system for a small customer. 800 mailboxes in total. They are requesting 100 GIGABYTE mailboxes for all of their users!

    I am planning on using Outlook 2010 as their client, in cached mode. Are there any best practices to follow for Exchange 2010 mailbox sizes? I think that 100 GIGABYTE mailbox are way to large, but with all the new techniology, this may not be an issue.

    Any guidence is appreciated.

     

    Friday, August 13, 2010 12:07 PM

Answers

  • That seems genuinely excessive.  800M/Bs x100GB is 80TB.  Even with largest SATA disks and RAID-0, you'd be looking at a minimum of three disk enclosures.

    What is the client's business that they are requesting such huge space in their mailboxes?  The largest media files would still have to count into thousands per mailbox to fill up that much space.

    Exchange 2010 can certainly accommodate large mailboxes (even 100GB if properly configured), but the concept of using the mail system as file storage is a bit flawed.  Integration with SharePoint may be a better approach.  Or, at the very least, for the client to examine whether each of 800 users genuinely require a 100GB mailbox.

    Finally, BPOS offers 25GB mailboxes, so that would be a good benchmark for largest average size, assuming client has a genuine requirement.

    Btw, what is their current email system and how much data have they got?

    Cheers.


    Bojan Nenadic
    Friday, August 13, 2010 12:43 PM
  • Wow...that is a lot of storage.  Use the MS storage calculate to properly size the databases and server requirements.  It should help fill in any gaps and get you thinking about some of the other factors.

    http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/09/453117.aspx

     


    Tim Harrington - Catapult Systems - http://HowDoUC.blogspot.com
    Friday, August 13, 2010 1:29 PM
  • You may also want to think about using the online archive capabilities of 2010 and perhaps give them smaller "Production" mailboxes, and allow large archive mailboxes for that data that isnt accessed on a regular basis.

    Friday, August 13, 2010 1:57 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • That seems genuinely excessive.  800M/Bs x100GB is 80TB.  Even with largest SATA disks and RAID-0, you'd be looking at a minimum of three disk enclosures.

    What is the client's business that they are requesting such huge space in their mailboxes?  The largest media files would still have to count into thousands per mailbox to fill up that much space.

    Exchange 2010 can certainly accommodate large mailboxes (even 100GB if properly configured), but the concept of using the mail system as file storage is a bit flawed.  Integration with SharePoint may be a better approach.  Or, at the very least, for the client to examine whether each of 800 users genuinely require a 100GB mailbox.

    Finally, BPOS offers 25GB mailboxes, so that would be a good benchmark for largest average size, assuming client has a genuine requirement.

    Btw, what is their current email system and how much data have they got?

    Cheers.


    Bojan Nenadic
    Friday, August 13, 2010 12:43 PM
  • Wow...that is a lot of storage.  Use the MS storage calculate to properly size the databases and server requirements.  It should help fill in any gaps and get you thinking about some of the other factors.

    http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2009/11/09/453117.aspx

     


    Tim Harrington - Catapult Systems - http://HowDoUC.blogspot.com
    Friday, August 13, 2010 1:29 PM
  • You may also want to think about using the online archive capabilities of 2010 and perhaps give them smaller "Production" mailboxes, and allow large archive mailboxes for that data that isnt accessed on a regular basis.

    Friday, August 13, 2010 1:57 PM
    Moderator