locked
exchange database cleanup

    Question

  • Hi ,
    I am trying to clean up clients mailboxes by moving emails but this is not reflected to exchange 2003 database, how can I reflect that space to get more space since am running out of space on the drive that contain the database files

    Thanks in advance for your help
    mohammad
    Tuesday, April 14, 2009 5:54 AM

Answers

  • Offline defragmentation with eseutil utility is the only thing to reduce the size of database.

    Alternatively you can move all the mailboxes to another database (you can create more than one DB only if you have Enterprise edition) which has database files (edb and stm) on the partition where you have enough space and delete the current DB.

    Refer below article on how to defrag DB. You can use /t switch to give temporary path of your shared network drive for output file since you don't have 110% of free space on the derive where current DB sits.
    How to defragment with the Eseutil utility (Eseutil.exe)

    Before running offline defrag make sure that online maintenance cleaned up the space and you have enough white space to to reduce. White space shows in 1221 is the approx amount of space you can reduce with offline defrag.
    Online defragmentation has completed a full pass on the database; Review the Application log for event 1221 to make sure that online maintenance finished successfully

    Why you shouldn't consider it as regular maintenance.
    Is offline defragmentation considered regular Exchange maintenance?


    Amit Tank | MVP - Exchange | MCITP:EMA MCSA:M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com
    • Proposed as answer by Amit Tank Friday, April 17, 2009 7:07 AM
    • Marked as answer by Alan.Gim Monday, April 20, 2009 1:27 AM
    Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:11 AM
  • Amit’s post is a very solid answer for this question, the following resources are just some supplement:

    How to defragment Exchange databases

    Understanding Exchange Databases Disk Consumption

    Offline Defrag not reducing physical store size (Similar case)

    Exchange 2003 Mailbox Move (Similar case)

    • Proposed as answer by Amit Tank Friday, April 17, 2009 7:07 AM
    • Marked as answer by Alan.Gim Monday, April 20, 2009 1:27 AM
    Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:36 AM

All replies

  • Offline defragmentation with eseutil utility is the only thing to reduce the size of database.

    Alternatively you can move all the mailboxes to another database (you can create more than one DB only if you have Enterprise edition) which has database files (edb and stm) on the partition where you have enough space and delete the current DB.

    Refer below article on how to defrag DB. You can use /t switch to give temporary path of your shared network drive for output file since you don't have 110% of free space on the derive where current DB sits.
    How to defragment with the Eseutil utility (Eseutil.exe)

    Before running offline defrag make sure that online maintenance cleaned up the space and you have enough white space to to reduce. White space shows in 1221 is the approx amount of space you can reduce with offline defrag.
    Online defragmentation has completed a full pass on the database; Review the Application log for event 1221 to make sure that online maintenance finished successfully

    Why you shouldn't consider it as regular maintenance.
    Is offline defragmentation considered regular Exchange maintenance?


    Amit Tank | MVP - Exchange | MCITP:EMA MCSA:M | http://ExchangeShare.WordPress.com
    • Proposed as answer by Amit Tank Friday, April 17, 2009 7:07 AM
    • Marked as answer by Alan.Gim Monday, April 20, 2009 1:27 AM
    Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:11 AM
  • Amit’s post is a very solid answer for this question, the following resources are just some supplement:

    How to defragment Exchange databases

    Understanding Exchange Databases Disk Consumption

    Offline Defrag not reducing physical store size (Similar case)

    Exchange 2003 Mailbox Move (Similar case)

    • Proposed as answer by Amit Tank Friday, April 17, 2009 7:07 AM
    • Marked as answer by Alan.Gim Monday, April 20, 2009 1:27 AM
    Tuesday, April 14, 2009 6:36 AM