Prev: 03 -> 07 migration EAP unwanted results: unwanted email address for all users
Next: Help
From: Art Frank on 26 Feb 2010 17:49
I'm experimenting with Exch 2003 -> 2010 migration in my test lab, and I have
a couple of questions:

1. The mailbox database is about 50 GB on disk in Exchange 2003. In
Exchange 2010 it's over 100 GB! Is this normal? Is this because the page
size has increased?

2. Since this database is over 100 GB, I'm inclined to break it up into
smaller DBs. What's the best practice here? MS documentation now says
Exchange 2010 can support DBs up to 2 TB (!) but I suspect that something
much smaller is actually ideal. Suggestions?

Thank you!
From: Ed Crowley [MVP] on 26 Feb 2010 20:38
Exchange 2010 no longer has single instance storage, but I believe that it
would be unlikely that it would cause such growth, especially with their
compression improvements. Before doing anything, I'd determine whether
there is a lot of white space in the database that you could compress out.
In this day and age, 100GB isn't that large a database. But it's a good
thing to have more smaller databases becuase they're quicker to restore and
maintain.
--
Ed Crowley MVP
"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
..

"Art Frank" <ArtFrank(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2EEB4BB9-935F-4F6B-9C36-C72E590D27CD(a)microsoft.com...
> I'm experimenting with Exch 2003 -> 2010 migration in my test lab, and I
> have
> a couple of questions:
>
> 1. The mailbox database is about 50 GB on disk in Exchange 2003. In
> Exchange 2010 it's over 100 GB! Is this normal? Is this because the page
> size has increased?
>
> 2. Since this database is over 100 GB, I'm inclined to break it up into
> smaller DBs. What's the best practice here? MS documentation now says
> Exchange 2010 can support DBs up to 2 TB (!) but I suspect that something
> much smaller is actually ideal. Suggestions?
>
> Thank you!

From: Art Frank on 8 Mar 2010 17:43
Been poking around for the last week or so, and I still have no idea why the
database grew so much. It has about 350 MB of white space, so that isn't the
deal.

But in truth, it might not be the database after all. In the mailbox
database folder there are many many many (more than 56,000) .log files that
are named "E000000000A" and the like, each one about 1 MB in size. Are these
actually part of the database? Are they leftovers from the migration process
(leftovers that I can delete)?


"Ed Crowley [MVP]" wrote:

> Exchange 2010 no longer has single instance storage, but I believe that it
> would be unlikely that it would cause such growth, especially with their
> compression improvements. Before doing anything, I'd determine whether
> there is a lot of white space in the database that you could compress out.
> In this day and age, 100GB isn't that large a database. But it's a good
> thing to have more smaller databases becuase they're quicker to restore and
> maintain.
> --
> Ed Crowley MVP
> "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."
> ..
>
> "Art Frank" <ArtFrank(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2EEB4BB9-935F-4F6B-9C36-C72E590D27CD(a)microsoft.com...
> > I'm experimenting with Exch 2003 -> 2010 migration in my test lab, and I
> > have
> > a couple of questions:
> >
> > 1. The mailbox database is about 50 GB on disk in Exchange 2003. In
> > Exchange 2010 it's over 100 GB! Is this normal? Is this because the page
> > size has increased?
> >
> > 2. Since this database is over 100 GB, I'm inclined to break it up into
> > smaller DBs. What's the best practice here? MS documentation now says
> > Exchange 2010 can support DBs up to 2 TB (!) but I suspect that something
> > much smaller is actually ideal. Suggestions?
> >
> > Thank you!
>
> .
>
From: Rich Matheisen [MVP] on 8 Mar 2010 19:46
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:43:01 -0800, Art Frank
<ArtFrank(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Been poking around for the last week or so, and I still have no idea why the
>database grew so much. It has about 350 MB of white space, so that isn't the
>deal.
>
>But in truth, it might not be the database after all. In the mailbox
>database folder there are many many many (more than 56,000) .log files that
>are named "E000000000A" and the like, each one about 1 MB in size. Are these
>actually part of the database? Are they leftovers from the migration process
>(leftovers that I can delete)?

They should disappear after you make a "normal" Exchange-aware backup
of the database.
---
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
From: Art Frank on 11 Mar 2010 12:02
Ah, yes, after further reading, these are the database log files (which I
sort of suspected). Thank you.

"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 14:43:01 -0800, Art Frank
> <ArtFrank(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Been poking around for the last week or so, and I still have no idea why the
> >database grew so much. It has about 350 MB of white space, so that isn't the
> >deal.
> >
> >But in truth, it might not be the database after all. In the mailbox
> >database folder there are many many many (more than 56,000) .log files that
> >are named "E000000000A" and the like, each one about 1 MB in size. Are these
> >actually part of the database? Are they leftovers from the migration process
> >(leftovers that I can delete)?
>
> They should disappear after you make a "normal" Exchange-aware backup
> of the database.
> ---
> Rich Matheisen
> MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
> .
>
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: 03 -> 07 migration EAP unwanted results: unwanted email address for all users
Next: Help