Prev: Accessing an OST file
Next: howto rebild backup
From: psanborn on 17 Mar 2010 13:21
I have got a client who is cleaning up mailboxes, e.g. deleteing mail, then
emptying that, archiving mail etc...his mailbox was about 2.2GB, he remove a
significant amount of items, however his mailbox still shows that size in the
DB, for he is the only one there. I would have thought that it woudl have
shrunk a bit. THis mail DB will be used for large mailbox users, so he is in
a test phase when this came up. any one have any ideas? Policies are to
delete deleted items after 30 days..
From: Rich Matheisen [MVP] on 17 Mar 2010 15:12
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:21:01 -0700, psanborn
<psanborn(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I have got a client who is cleaning up mailboxes, e.g. deleteing mail, then
>emptying that, archiving mail etc...his mailbox was about 2.2GB, he remove a
>significant amount of items, however his mailbox still shows that size in the
>DB, for he is the only one there. I would have thought that it woudl have
>shrunk a bit. THis mail DB will be used for large mailbox users, so he is in
>a test phase when this came up. any one have any ideas? Policies are to
>delete deleted items after 30 days..

Sounds like a synchronization problem between Outlook (working in
cached mode) and the Exchange server. Removing messages from a mailbox
will certainly reduce the size of the mailbox, provided the deletions
are made on the server and not confined to the local OST file on the
client.
---
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
From: psanborn on 13 Apr 2010 09:23
non cached mode in outlook. thank you for the reply though.

"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:21:01 -0700, psanborn
> <psanborn(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >I have got a client who is cleaning up mailboxes, e.g. deleteing mail, then
> >emptying that, archiving mail etc...his mailbox was about 2.2GB, he remove a
> >significant amount of items, however his mailbox still shows that size in the
> >DB, for he is the only one there. I would have thought that it woudl have
> >shrunk a bit. THis mail DB will be used for large mailbox users, so he is in
> >a test phase when this came up. any one have any ideas? Policies are to
> >delete deleted items after 30 days..
>
> Sounds like a synchronization problem between Outlook (working in
> cached mode) and the Exchange server. Removing messages from a mailbox
> will certainly reduce the size of the mailbox, provided the deletions
> are made on the server and not confined to the local OST file on the
> client.
> ---
> Rich Matheisen
> MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
> .
>
From: Rich Matheisen [MVP] on 13 Apr 2010 21:29
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:23:01 -0700, psanborn
<psanborn(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>non cached mode in outlook. thank you for the reply though.

I haven't seen a problem with the misstating of folder sizes in E2K7
(or in E2K3) although that was not uncommon in Exchange 5.5 and 2000
(and maybe in early days of 2003).

If you suspect there's such a problem with the mailbox then moving the
mailbox to another database should set the item counts and sizes to
their correct values. If you do that and the mailbbox and folders all
retain their previous values then the user's not being truthful about
removing significant numbers of items -- or it may be that the
messages that were removed were very small ones that make little
difference in a 2GB mailbox.

You can run get-mailboxfolderstatistics on the mailbox and have a look
at the item mounts and folder sizes.
---
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Accessing an OST file
Next: howto rebild backup