The archive vendors we spoke with have PST ingestion into the archive. But since the ingestion places a stub in Exchange to point to the archive server, it seems it does bring some overhead to Exchange storage. I realize the stub is smaller then the original email but as the number of years pile on it seems we don't know what to expect. Am I naiive to have thought we could keep mailbox size limits, do we need to relax or even remove all limits so the archiving and exch can work?
Martin Tuip wrote a good article about precisely this. http://www.archiving101.com/?p=95 Its good reading because one thing people have figured out is that it isn't the size of the mailbox, but the number of items in the folders. "Dave" <davep@nospam.postalias> wrote in message news:C1FB3302-03FE-460F-A93F-720B0D4C92CA@microsoft.com... > The archive vendors we spoke with have PST ingestion into the archive. > But > since the ingestion places a stub in Exchange to point to the archive > server, > it seems it does bring some overhead to Exchange storage. > > I realize the stub is smaller then the original email but as the number of > years pile on it seems we don't know what to expect. Am I naiive to > have > thought we could keep mailbox size limits, do we need to relax or even > remove > all limits so the archiving and exch can work? > > > >
I wish I had that article a month ago, well maybe, the big players all use stubs and Gartner likes them and that has a big say here. If Martin Tuip's Mimosa product is superior, the market doesn't seem to know it. "Martin Blackstone" wrote: > Martin Tuip wrote a good article about precisely this. > http://www.archiving101.com/?p=95 > > Its good reading because one thing people have figured out is that it isn't > the size of the mailbox, but the number of items in the folders. > > "Dave" <davep@nospam.postalias> wrote in message > news:C1FB3302-03FE-460F-A93F-720B0D4C92CA@microsoft.com... > > The archive vendors we spoke with have PST ingestion into the archive. > > But > > since the ingestion places a stub in Exchange to point to the archive > > server, > > it seems it does bring some overhead to Exchange storage. > > > > I realize the stub is smaller then the original email but as the number of > > years pile on it seems we don't know what to expect. Am I naiive to > > have > > thought we could keep mailbox size limits, do we need to relax or even > > remove > > all limits so the archiving and exch can work? > > > > > > > > > >
Gartner is not the market. -- Ed Crowley MVP - Exchange "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!" "Dave" <davep@nospam.postalias> wrote in message news:37AC0D29-5605-4106-879D-FE58CF0210B3@microsoft.com... >I wish I had that article a month ago, well maybe, the big players all use > stubs and Gartner likes them and that has a big say here. If Martin > Tuip's > Mimosa product is superior, the market doesn't seem to know it. > > "Martin Blackstone" wrote: > >> Martin Tuip wrote a good article about precisely this. >> http://www.archiving101.com/?p=95 >> >> Its good reading because one thing people have figured out is that it >> isn't >> the size of the mailbox, but the number of items in the folders. >> >> "Dave" <davep@nospam.postalias> wrote in message >> news:C1FB3302-03FE-460F-A93F-720B0D4C92CA@microsoft.com... >> > The archive vendors we spoke with have PST ingestion into the archive. >> > But >> > since the ingestion places a stub in Exchange to point to the archive >> > server, >> > it seems it does bring some overhead to Exchange storage. >> > >> > I realize the stub is smaller then the original email but as the number >> > of >> > years pile on it seems we don't know what to expect. Am I naiive to >> > have >> > thought we could keep mailbox size limits, do we need to relax or even >> > remove >> > all limits so the archiving and exch can work? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >>
