Does anyone know of any tool for Exchange that will estimate the time needed 
to offline defrag an information store in Exchange 2003?
-- 
Rick

You already have the tool. Take one finger, lick it and hold it in the air. 
It will depend on fragmentation, processor, RAM, spindles, disk performance, 
motherboard backplane, server load, other services in use...

I normally expect 10GB/hr for offline defrags to give you an idea.

"Roide"  wrote in message 
news:2731FC83-D38A-41FD-9B23-6172660E7E20@microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know of any tool for Exchange that will estimate the time 
> needed
> to offline defrag an information store in Exchange 2003?
> -- 
> Rick

Yep, I agree with Nick.  I tell people to expect between 5 and 10GB and 
hour, but PLAN for 5GB/hour.  Sometimes, depending on the server, spindles, 
disks, controller, amount of white space, etc.. it finishes even sooner. 
Never seen a tool that would do the estimate for you.  But, once you do one 
on a particular server, that should give you an idea of what that hardware 
can support.


-- 
Jim McBee
Blog: http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.com
Web: http://www.somorita.com



"Nick Gillott [MVP]"  wrote in message 
news:%23mSeQHrTGHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> You already have the tool. Take one finger, lick it and hold it in the 
> air. It will depend on fragmentation, processor, RAM, spindles, disk 
> performance, motherboard backplane, server load, other services in use...
>
> I normally expect 10GB/hr for offline defrags to give you an idea.
>
> "Roide"  wrote in message 
> news:2731FC83-D38A-41FD-9B23-6172660E7E20@microsoft.com...
>> Does anyone know of any tool for Exchange that will estimate the time 
>> needed
>> to offline defrag an information store in Exchange 2003?
>> -- 
>> Rick
>
>

At TechEd last year, one of the Exchange speakers suggested never doing an 
offline defrag, rather, just move the mailboxes...the users will have less 
downtime, and you get the option of excluding corrupt items during the move 
operations.  I'm not saying this is gospel, but I've been using that 
attitude/method since, and have come to prefer it over taking the whole 
store down for hours on end.
"Jim McBee [MVP Exchange]"  wrote in message 
news:O%23jaUGxTGHA.1728@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Yep, I agree with Nick.  I tell people to expect between 5 and 10GB and 
> hour, but PLAN for 5GB/hour.  Sometimes, depending on the server, 
> spindles, disks, controller, amount of white space, etc.. it finishes even 
> sooner. Never seen a tool that would do the estimate for you.  But, once 
> you do one on a particular server, that should give you an idea of what 
> that hardware can support.
>
>
> -- 
> Jim McBee
> Blog: http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.com
> Web: http://www.somorita.com
>
>
>
> "Nick Gillott [MVP]"  wrote in message 
> news:%23mSeQHrTGHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> You already have the tool. Take one finger, lick it and hold it in the 
>> air. It will depend on fragmentation, processor, RAM, spindles, disk 
>> performance, motherboard backplane, server load, other services in use...
>>
>> I normally expect 10GB/hr for offline defrags to give you an idea.
>>
>> "Roide"  wrote in message 
>> news:2731FC83-D38A-41FD-9B23-6172660E7E20@microsoft.com...
>>> Does anyone know of any tool for Exchange that will estimate the time 
>>> needed
>>> to offline defrag an information store in Exchange 2003?
>>> -- 
>>> Rick
>>
>>
>
>

I'm a bit confused... Move them where? Another server? Exactly how does that 
save time?

-- 
Regards,
Hank Arnold

"Jacob M. Ross"  wrote in message 
news:%23koJdo6TGHA.4864@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> At TechEd last year, one of the Exchange speakers suggested never doing an 
> offline defrag, rather, just move the mailboxes...the users will have less 
> downtime, and you get the option of excluding corrupt items during the 
> move operations.  I'm not saying this is gospel, but I've been using that 
> attitude/method since, and have come to prefer it over taking the whole 
> store down for hours on end.
> "Jim McBee [MVP Exchange]"  wrote in message 
> news:O%23jaUGxTGHA.1728@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Yep, I agree with Nick.  I tell people to expect between 5 and 10GB and 
>> hour, but PLAN for 5GB/hour.  Sometimes, depending on the server, 
>> spindles, disks, controller, amount of white space, etc.. it finishes 
>> even sooner. Never seen a tool that would do the estimate for you.  But, 
>> once you do one on a particular server, that should give you an idea of 
>> what that hardware can support.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Jim McBee
>> Blog: http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.com
>> Web: http://www.somorita.com
>>
>>
>>
>> "Nick Gillott [MVP]"  wrote in message 
>> news:%23mSeQHrTGHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>>> You already have the tool. Take one finger, lick it and hold it in the 
>>> air. It will depend on fragmentation, processor, RAM, spindles, disk 
>>> performance, motherboard backplane, server load, other services in 
>>> use...
>>>
>>> I normally expect 10GB/hr for offline defrags to give you an idea.
>>>
>>> "Roide"  wrote in message 
>>> news:2731FC83-D38A-41FD-9B23-6172660E7E20@microsoft.com...
>>>> Does anyone know of any tool for Exchange that will estimate the time 
>>>> needed
>>>> to offline defrag an information store in Exchange 2003?
>>>> -- 
>>>> Rick
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Hank Arnold"  wrote:

>I'm a bit confused... Move them where? Another server? Exactly how does that 
>save time?

It save DOWNtime. To run eseutil you have to dismount the databse
until the process is completed. That usually means you'll be doing
this work on weekends or after-hours. If you're running Exchange 2003
you can schedule the move of mailboxes and the duration of
interruption to users is only the time it takes to move *their*
mailbox. Scheduling the move to happen during the time you planned to
run eseutil means you don't have to be there. Sounds like a timesaver
to me!

-- 
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
Or to these, either: mailto:h.pott@pinkroccade.com mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@getronics.com mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@pinkroccade.com

I'm still confused as to where the mailboxes are being moved.....

-- 
Regards,
Hank Arnold

"Rich Matheisen [MVP]"  wrote in message 
news:jt5b221bjdhut3lvt1kclsfja472q2473f@4ax.com...
> "Hank Arnold"  wrote:
>
>>I'm a bit confused... Move them where? Another server? Exactly how does 
>>that
>>save time?
>
> It save DOWNtime. To run eseutil you have to dismount the databse
> until the process is completed. That usually means you'll be doing
> this work on weekends or after-hours. If you're running Exchange 2003
> you can schedule the move of mailboxes and the duration of
> interruption to users is only the time it takes to move *their*
> mailbox. Scheduling the move to happen during the time you planned to
> run eseutil means you don't have to be there. Sounds like a timesaver
> to me!
>
> -- 
> Rich Matheisen
> MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
> MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
> Or to these, either: mailto:h.pott@pinkroccade.com 
> mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@getronics.com 
> mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@pinkroccade.com

"Hank Arnold"  wrote:

>I'm still confused as to where the mailboxes are being moved.....

To another database. Whether that database is on the same server or
another server is up to you and the version of Exchange that you're
running (Standard or Enterprise).

If you run Standard you have only one choice, and that's to move them
to another server.

If you run Enterprise you can (if you haven't reached the maximum
number of databases allowed on a server) create another database on
the same server and move the mailboxes there.

Once the move is complete you should be able to dismount the database
and delete (or rename) the edb and stm files. Remounting the database
will create an empty database and you can move the mailboxes back
there if you want to.

-- 
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Don't send mail to this address mailto:h.pott@getronics.com
Or to these, either: mailto:h.pott@pinkroccade.com mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@getronics.com mailto:melvin.mcphucknuckle@pinkroccade.com

Rich Matheisen [MVP] wrote:
> "Hank Arnold"  wrote:
> 
>> I'm still confused as to where the mailboxes are being moved.....
> 
> To another database. Whether that database is on the same server or
> another server is up to you and the version of Exchange that you're
> running (Standard or Enterprise).
> 
> If you run Standard you have only one choice, and that's to move them
> to another server.
> 
> If you run Enterprise you can (if you haven't reached the maximum
> number of databases allowed on a server) create another database on
> the same server and move the mailboxes there.
> 
> Once the move is complete you should be able to dismount the database
> and delete (or rename) the edb and stm files. Remounting the database
> will create an empty database and you can move the mailboxes back
> there if you want to.
> 
Nice... I get it now... :-)

Regards,
Hank Arnold

<REPRINT>

1.  On the exchange server, from the command line, you can only run one
instance at a time.  You could always copy the dbs and logs to another
server, or multiple servers if you want to do multiple databases in
parallel, but the copy process adds time to an already lengthy down time.
In a storage group, all stores share a common set of logs.  Even if you went
off box to do the defrag, you'd still be limited to a number of instances
equal to the number of storage groups you have.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/244525/en-us

2.  Did you permanently remove a large amount of mail lately?  Have you
waited for the deleted items retention period to expire, and then background
maintenance and online defrag to complete?  If not, you won't reclaim
anything.  As stated in this thread, check your event ID 1221 to make sure
you'll reclaim enough space to make the down time worth while.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/258951/en-us

3.  Be aware that for each store you plan to defrag you will need 110% the
size of the store free space on the volume; otherwise you'll have to use -t
and redirect somewhere else where there is free space. If you don't
defragment on the same volume, at the end of defragmentation, instead of
just renaming the temp.edb, eseutil has to copy and rename which will
require extra time.  Don't forget to run isinteg after eseutil.  This does
add even more down time.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/192185/en-us
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/328804/en-us

4.  Contrary to urban legend, it's not a good practice to regularly do an
offline defrag.  Unless you have permanently removed a lot of mail, there's
nothing to be gained and a whole lot of downside.  Only do an offline defrag
when you absolutely need to.  If you are following the current MS guidance
for store/storage group layout, with 8 stores you have two stores in each of
four storage groups.  Even if you have removed a lot of mail, the
alternative process of mounting a new store, move mailboxes, and dismounting
and deleting the old store is a much cleaner route, accomplishes the same
space savings, and doesn't have anywhere near the down time down side.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/890699/en-us

Is it really worth the effort and the down time to do the offline defrag?

my $00.02

John


"Ed Crowley [MVP]"  wrote in message
news:%23WyV0xURGHA.224@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm not sure that's what the article says.  I'd certainly keep a copy of
> the databases somewhere else before trying it though.
> -- 
> Ed Crowley
> MVP - Exchange
> "Protecting the world from PSTs and brick backups!"
>
> "Leif Pedersen [MVP]"  wrote in message
> news:uJQf4QURGHA.4520@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> You can only run one instance of eseutil at a time:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;192185
>>
>> Leif
>>
>> "KingCronos"  wrote in message
>> news:1141919945.483817.222820@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>>> We have about 8 different Exchange databases on our email server. I
>>> want to run eseutil and isinteg on all of them this weekend. Is it
>>> possible to open 8 different command prompt windows and run 8 jobs
>>> simultaneously on 8 different databases? Can ISINTEG and ESEUTIL work
>>> like this, or will I have a problem?
>>>
>>> Thanks KC
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

</REPRINT>

"Roide"  wrote in message 
news:2731FC83-D38A-41FD-9B23-6172660E7E20@microsoft.com...
> Does anyone know of any tool for Exchange that will estimate the time 
> needed
> to offline defrag an information store in Exchange 2003?
> -- 
> Rick

thanks guys.
-- 
Rick


"Jacob M. Ross" wrote:

> At TechEd last year, one of the Exchange speakers suggested never doing an 
> offline defrag, rather, just move the mailboxes...the users will have less 
> downtime, and you get the option of excluding corrupt items during the move 
> operations.  I'm not saying this is gospel, but I've been using that 
> attitude/method since, and have come to prefer it over taking the whole 
> store down for hours on end.
> "Jim McBee [MVP Exchange]"  wrote in message 
> news:O%23jaUGxTGHA.1728@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Yep, I agree with Nick.  I tell people to expect between 5 and 10GB and 
> > hour, but PLAN for 5GB/hour.  Sometimes, depending on the server, 
> > spindles, disks, controller, amount of white space, etc.. it finishes even 
> > sooner. Never seen a tool that would do the estimate for you.  But, once 
> > you do one on a particular server, that should give you an idea of what 
> > that hardware can support.
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Jim McBee
> > Blog: http://mostlyexchange.blogspot.com
> > Web: http://www.somorita.com
> >
> >
> >
> > "Nick Gillott [MVP]"  wrote in message 
> > news:%23mSeQHrTGHA.4132@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >> You already have the tool. Take one finger, lick it and hold it in the 
> >> air. It will depend on fragmentation, processor, RAM, spindles, disk 
> >> performance, motherboard backplane, server load, other services in use...
> >>
> >> I normally expect 10GB/hr for offline defrags to give you an idea.
> >>
> >> "Roide"  wrote in message 
> >> news:2731FC83-D38A-41FD-9B23-6172660E7E20@microsoft.com...
> >>> Does anyone know of any tool for Exchange that will estimate the time 
> >>> needed
> >>> to offline defrag an information store in Exchange 2003?
> >>> -- 
> >>> Rick
> >>
> >>
> >
> > 
> 
> 
>