Hi there,

I'd like to know how big a normal exchange mailbox will be in most companies
using
Exchange server. Would you please contribute to let us know about that?

Our Exchange server that we set every one has 1.5GB. We've been asked
how large mailbox of other companies use to set for their users. Some users
want
their mailbox to be unlimited...that's odd...but kept being asked all the
times!!

We explained, and explaining, even provide some documentation for
understanding about
archiving and organizing your email ...

Thanks for your reading!!

J.H

On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:58:09 -0700, "J.H"  wrote:

>Hi there,
>
>I'd like to know how big a normal exchange mailbox will be in most companies
>using
>Exchange server. Would you please contribute to let us know about that?
>
>Our Exchange server that we set every one has 1.5GB. We've been asked
>how large mailbox of other companies use to set for their users. Some users
>want
>their mailbox to be unlimited...that's odd...but kept being asked all the
>times!!
>
>We explained, and explaining, even provide some documentation for
>understanding about
>archiving and organizing your email ...
>

First: DO NOT CROSSPOST! 

Second: if you give them 1.5 gig, they will use 1.5 gig. That is, they
will never, ever, delete old emails, never clean up their email
folders, and such. 

Limits are vital if you have more than a handful of users. I usually
suggest that 'normal' users have a mailbox size between 25 and 150 MB.
If they need more than 150 MB, make them justify it (and don't accept
that 'I get lots of email' as justification.) 

Post a sign at the IT desk: maximum mail box size is XXX, please do
not ask for more! that may help. If you find users are successfully
going over your head to force larger mail boxes, consider that you are
workign for the wrong company. 

IMHO, 1.5G is way too much. That would allow a user to have, for
example, to have over 60,000 messages 25K in size each. 

Make sure your users realize that exchange is not the place to archive
or store stuff off-line, so to speak. That only works in Dilbert
cartoons. <bg> 
PeterD, the Darkstar Network
To email, fix my address!
ExpertZone!

It is going to depend upon the business case(s), the infrastructure, 
backups, DR requirements, etc.  In most situations I have seen 25-200MB with 
the occasional person with a 1GB mailbox.  For the most part the limit was 
100MB unless a business case was made and a memo sent from a Sr. Manager, 
Director, VP, or equivalent.

A former "home" of mine had users with 2-4GB mailboxes.  The only issue we 
had was syching their .ost (Outlook XP(2002) and Outlook 2000).  Those same 
users, their management, and some politics, got my department a TL891 
autoloader, a couple hundred DLT tapes, a backup server, new backup 
software, off-site storage, a DR location (SunGuard), etc.  Prior to that it 
also got me Exchange 5.5 Enterprise and then Exchange 2000 Enterprise.  We 
had 300 users and 160GB of mail across several stores when I left the 
company.  It's an uphill (and precarious) battle fighting with the user 
community.

Sooo...if your senior management supports the expansion of your 
infrastructure to support the larger mailboxes, and you can afford the 
infrastructure to support it, then large mailboxes it is.  Or...another 
option is an archiving application from Zantaz (EAS), Commvault, KVS/Veritas 
(Vault), Legato/Documentum, etc.  Some of the applications have an archival 
piece, which archives messages, attachments over x days old, etc.  Companies 
with SANs may implement this in order to shuffle the older messages and the 
attachments to secondary disk (SATA or FATA) on a less-expensive SAN.  Then 
there are some that have the compliance piece, which archives all e-mail 
messages sent and recieved.  This is mainly to comply with SarBox/SOX, the 
NASD or NYSE memos, etc.

Bob

"J.H"  wrote in message 
news:uMGtb6$VFHA.3216@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi there,
>
> I'd like to know how big a normal exchange mailbox will be in most 
> companies
> using
> Exchange server. Would you please contribute to let us know about that?
>
> Our Exchange server that we set every one has 1.5GB. We've been asked
> how large mailbox of other companies use to set for their users. Some 
> users
> want
> their mailbox to be unlimited...that's odd...but kept being asked all the
> times!!
>
> We explained, and explaining, even provide some documentation for
> understanding about
> archiving and organizing your email ...
>
> Thanks for your reading!!
>
> J.H
>
>

As much as you need.  As much as you can.  As much as you can justify.

How long is a piece of string?

There is a cost to storing mailboxes.  Server(s), Software, backup tools, 
recovery windows.
Only you can determine what is right for your company.

I would say, document the costs.  Present report to manangement.  Have them 
determine what the limits should be.
If they want unlimited, there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they 
know the issues/costs/ramifications that go along with it.

Soon everyone will have their own Exchange server.



"J.H"  wrote in message 
news:uMGtb6$VFHA.3216@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi there,
>
> I'd like to know how big a normal exchange mailbox will be in most 
> companies
> using
> Exchange server. Would you please contribute to let us know about that?
>
> Our Exchange server that we set every one has 1.5GB. We've been asked
> how large mailbox of other companies use to set for their users. Some 
> users
> want
> their mailbox to be unlimited...that's odd...but kept being asked all the
> times!!
>
> We explained, and explaining, even provide some documentation for
> understanding about
> archiving and organizing your email ...
>
> Thanks for your reading!!
>
> J.H
>
>

Peter D. Hipson wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 13:58:09 -0700, "J.H"  wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I'd like to know how big a normal exchange mailbox will be in most
>> companies using
>> Exchange server. Would you please contribute to let us know about
>> that?
>>
>> Our Exchange server that we set every one has 1.5GB. We've been asked
>> how large mailbox of other companies use to set for their users.
>> Some users want
>> their mailbox to be unlimited...that's odd...but kept being asked
>> all the times!!
>>
>> We explained, and explaining, even provide some documentation for
>> understanding about
>> archiving and organizing your email ...
>>
>
> First: DO NOT CROSSPOST!

My stars, why on earth not? There's absolutely nothing wrong with
crossposting in general. It is much better than (multi-)posting a bunch of
identical messages to different groups. However, to the OP: it's best if you
post only to a small number of groups (two or three) and make sure they are
all directly relevant. Remember, a lot of people sub to multiple groups, so
a ton of people will see your post anyway.
>
> Second: if you give them 1.5 gig, they will use 1.5 gig. That is, they
> will never, ever, delete old emails, never clean up their email
> folders, and such.

Probably true, but maybe not. They'll have to if they hit the 1.5GB limit
set, won't they....
>
> Limits are vital if you have more than a handful of users.

I think they're vital, anyway. Even if users behave and do constant
housekeeping, imagine if you get into a mail loop, even an internal one?

> I usually
> suggest that 'normal' users have a mailbox size between 25 and 150 MB.
> If they need more than 150 MB, make them justify it (and don't accept
> that 'I get lots of email' as justification.)
>
> Post a sign at the IT desk: maximum mail box size is XXX, please do
> not ask for more! that may help. If you find users are successfully
> going over your head to force larger mail boxes, consider that you are
> workign for the wrong company.
>
> IMHO, 1.5G is way too much. That would allow a user to have, for
> example, to have over 60,000 messages 25K in size each.

Or any variation on same. Other than the fact that having a gazillion
messages in any given folder will slow down Outlook performance to a crawl,
this is not a technical issue so much as a company policy one. The main
thing to bear in mind is your backup/restores  - not just how much you can
back up, but how long it will take - and also, how long it will take to
restore. Presuming Enterprise, set up multiple mail stores to divvy up the
mailboxes - this will make life easier. Presuming Standard - well, you'd
better not have more than a handful of users if you want to give them 1.5 GB
quotas.
>
> Make sure your users realize that exchange is not the place to archive
> or store stuff off-line, so to speak. That only works in Dilbert
> cartoons. <bg>

Yes, this is also a major training issue - particularly as regards sent
items (e.g., if you have a 20MB powerpoint presentation on your file server,
why do you need to save an identical copy in your sent items?)

> PeterD, the Darkstar Network
> To email, fix my address!
> ExpertZone!

I would say that you should always set limits on resources for users. If you 
don't, management suffers. You will find it difficult to create policies 
when resources are used unpredictably. A few hundred megabytes is generous 
depending on your available resources (divided by the number of users), and 
it's nice to be generous.
There is software that will allow you to keep online archives (emails remain 
visible but semi-transparent in the the inbox). When the user tries to open 
the archived mail, it is drawn from a different database (I guess like 
public folders).

If I sound like I don't realy know what I'm talking about, it's because I 
don't. These could be third party solutions or inherent Exchange solutions. 
I'm not sure. I'm new to this.

I agree with the other folks that a mailbox should be as big as it needs to 
be.   Most commercial and government organization that I work with set their 
"Warning Limit" to somewhere between 100 and 200MB.  Of course, VIPs usually 
are given more storage if they need it.   In one organization I work with, 
the VIPs are given 1.5GB of storage.

Peter is right, if you given them 1.5GB, they will use it.  Mostly because 
users become really sloppy at archival and cleanup if they don't have to do 
it very often.  *I* on the other hand, in my primary mailbox, am limited to 
95MB!  Weirdly enough, I don't have permissions to change it.  :-(   I 
frequently have to go back to mail that was sent to me 6 months or a year 
ago.  It is not often that you will hear someone say "Thank goodness for 
PSTs", but I have 10 of them with archived mail (I create a new one every 6 
months).  And thank goodness for Google's Desktop Search feature that lets 
me actually find things in those files!

My primary client is re-designing its Exchange architecture and is moving 
their storage limits DOWN to around 150MB per mailbox.  They are very heavy 
users of mail and actually need to keep quite a bit of mail available for 
accessing.  However, they implementing an archival solution also.  Anything 
older than 30 days is going to be archived to online storage using KVS.

If there is a business case for someone to have a lot of e-mail in their 
mailbox, I will never deny them a request to have it.   But I pity da fool 
that asks for more storage when they have MPG and MP3 files in their 
mailbox!  :-)

My $0.05 worth (I hate pennies)

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



"J.H"  wrote in message 
news:uMGtb6$VFHA.3216@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi there,
>
> I'd like to know how big a normal exchange mailbox will be in most 
> companies
> using
> Exchange server. Would you please contribute to let us know about that?
>
> Our Exchange server that we set every one has 1.5GB. We've been asked
> how large mailbox of other companies use to set for their users. Some 
> users
> want
> their mailbox to be unlimited...that's odd...but kept being asked all the
> times!!
>
> We explained, and explaining, even provide some documentation for
> understanding about
> archiving and organizing your email ...
>
> Thanks for your reading!!
>
> J.H
>
>

"Jim McBee [MVP Exchange]"  wrote in
news:OIuCrjZWFHA.2448@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl: 

> If there is a business case for someone to have a lot of e-mail in
> their mailbox, I will never deny them a request to have it.   But I
> pity da fool that asks for more storage when they have MPG and MP3
> files in their mailbox!  :-)
> 
> My $0.05 worth (I hate pennies)
> 

Along those lines, are there free tools to analyze the contents of 
mailboxes to report on e-mails by age, attachments by size and/or types, 
etc?

I come from a cc:mail and Lotus Notes background, and these tools were 
either part od the software, or quite trivial to write as a script. 

Not being able to peek at what is using the store is, IMHO, a mojor failure 
of the admin tools.

Hi Guys,

Thanks for your post.
Some employee of them complain that "Hey Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail giving 1GB at
least
for free" ....:-))) I LOL that how it is in the world they could can compare
like that?

I talked back to them "How is our company compared to Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail
companies?"

That's true that users do not want to clean up their email, so asking more
storage as an excuse
rid of cleaning, archiving the email's old message

That's stupid comparison!!

Thanks so much for everyone's contribution!!!

J.H

I had to send the long long email to explain this user.
"J.H"  wrote in message
news:uMGtb6$VFHA.3216@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Hi there,
>
> I'd like to know how big a normal exchange mailbox will be in most
companies
> using
> Exchange server. Would you please contribute to let us know about that?
>
> Our Exchange server that we set every one has 1.5GB. We've been asked
> how large mailbox of other companies use to set for their users. Some
users
> want
> their mailbox to be unlimited...that's odd...but kept being asked all the
> times!!
>
> We explained, and explaining, even provide some documentation for
> understanding about
> archiving and organizing your email ...
>
> Thanks for your reading!!
>
> J.H
>
>

Peter's advice is absolutely, positively wrong. Users absolutely will not 
use whatever their limit is.

The normal allocation is that about 90% of your users will use 10% of your 
storage and 10% of your users will use about 90% of your space. I've seen 
this ratio in a large number of organizations. Some users don't like 
mailboxes with anything in them, so they delete automatically, just as some 
users don't like cluttered desks, so they don't have reams of paper in 
drawers.

I was recently at an organization that had many, many users. They were 
looking at putting user limits in place, they currently had no limits. So 
they were trying to decide what the limit should be. They had thrown around 
all sorts of numbers, 5, 10, 50 MB and just couldn't get a good answer. So I 
recommended that they total up the current storage and see how much data per 
user that they were currently using. While this was an organization that had 
a lighter than normal email load, their average storage was 7MB per user!!! 
That's with the users having an unlimited store!!!  So by implementing a 
10MB limit, what they were guaranteeing is that they would make 10% of their 
users rather mad just for the heck of it.

Server based storage is really cheap. It's the best place for email to be 
and it it normally backed up and cared for better than any other data 
depository in an organization. Exchange has no issues with large mailboxes 
(although cache mode starts getting upset at 700MB or so) and single 
instance store makes for very efficient storage.

Remember, that as IT, your job is a SUPPORT role, not a DICTATOR role. Size 
your servers appropriately for what you expect the utilization will be and 
then turn your recommendation over to management to fund. If they want to 
pay for it, let them. If they want to decrease costs, then let them make the 
limits.


"Peter D. Hipson" <mcn01 at hipson dot net> wrote in message 
news:gi5a8197kbc20t3dc5q2nje8panjng4mh5@4ax.com...
>
> Second: if you give them 1.5 gig, they will use 1.5 gig. That is, they
> will never, ever, delete old emails, never clean up their email
> folders, and such.
>
> Limits are vital if you have more than a handful of users. I usually
> suggest that 'normal' users have a mailbox size between 25 and 150 MB.
> If they need more than 150 MB, make them justify it (and don't accept
> that 'I get lots of email' as justification.)
>
> Post a sign at the IT desk: maximum mail box size is XXX, please do
> not ask for more! that may help. If you find users are successfully
> going over your head to force larger mail boxes, consider that you are
> workign for the wrong company.
>
> IMHO, 1.5G is way too much. That would allow a user to have, for
> example, to have over 60,000 messages 25K in size each.
>
> Make sure your users realize that exchange is not the place to archive
> or store stuff off-line, so to speak. That only works in Dilbert
> cartoons. <bg>
> PeterD, the Darkstar Network
> To email, fix my address!
> ExpertZone!

Good analysis, Ed, and a good procedure for others to follow in analyzing their own scenarios. 

Regarding cached mode having problems at 700MB, do you have any similar empirical evidence? I've dicussed this with Microsoft, and they said that they've backed off their initial warnings that cached mode .ost files greater than 1GB could be a problem. 

-- 
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
     Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for 
     Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
     http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"Ed Woodrick"  wrote in message news:unMe2Q9WFHA.2060@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Peter's advice is absolutely, positively wrong. Users absolutely will not 
> use whatever their limit is.
> 
> The normal allocation is that about 90% of your users will use 10% of your 
> storage and 10% of your users will use about 90% of your space. I've seen 
> this ratio in a large number of organizations. Some users don't like 
> mailboxes with anything in them, so they delete automatically, just as some 
> users don't like cluttered desks, so they don't have reams of paper in > drawers.
> 
> I was recently at an organization that had many, many users. They were > looking at putting user limits in place, they currently had no limits. So 
> they were trying to decide what the limit should be. They had thrown around 
> all sorts of numbers, 5, 10, 50 MB and just couldn't get a good answer. So I 
> recommended that they total up the current storage and see how much data per 
> user that they were currently using. While this was an organization that had 
> a lighter than normal email load, their average storage was 7MB per user!!! 
> That's with the users having an unlimited store!!!  So by implementing a 
> 10MB limit, what they were guaranteeing is that they would make 10% of their 
> users rather mad just for the heck of it.
> 
> Server based storage is really cheap. It's the best place for email to be 
> and it it normally backed up and cared for better than any other data 
> depository in an organization. Exchange has no issues with large mailboxes 
> (although cache mode starts getting upset at 700MB or so) and single 
> instance store makes for very efficient storage.
> 
> Remember, that as IT, your job is a SUPPORT role, not a DICTATOR role. Size 
> your servers appropriately for what you expect the utilization will be and 
> then turn your recommendation over to management to fund. If they want to 
> pay for it, let them. If they want to decrease costs, then let them make the 
> limits.
> 
> 
> "Peter D. Hipson" <mcn01 at hipson dot net> wrote in message 
> news:gi5a8197kbc20t3dc5q2nje8panjng4mh5@4ax.com...
>>
>> Second: if you give them 1.5 gig, they will use 1.5 gig. That is, they
>> will never, ever, delete old emails, never clean up their email
>> folders, and such.
>>
>> Limits are vital if you have more than a handful of users. I usually
>> suggest that 'normal' users have a mailbox size between 25 and 150 MB.
>> If they need more than 150 MB, make them justify it (and don't accept
>> that 'I get lots of email' as justification.)
>>
>> Post a sign at the IT desk: maximum mail box size is XXX, please do
>> not ask for more! that may help. If you find users are successfully
>> going over your head to force larger mail boxes, consider that you are
>> workign for the wrong company.
>>
>> IMHO, 1.5G is way too much. That would allow a user to have, for
>> example, to have over 60,000 messages 25K in size each.
>>
>> Make sure your users realize that exchange is not the place to archive
>> or store stuff off-line, so to speak. That only works in Dilbert
>> cartoons. <bg>
>> PeterD, the Darkstar Network
>> To email, fix my address!
>> ExpertZone! 
> 
>

The limit is somewhat based on the historical PST issues that start around 
that number.

But from earlier testing, my performance seemed to start declining in the 
neighborhood. It seems as if the amount of housekeeping and traversing 
through directory trees just start getting too ugly above those numbers.

But I'd love to be proven wrong.

Of course it would also be nice if I could mark at least one folder tree 
(called archive?) to not be synchronized to my client and take up disk 
space.



"Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]"  wrote in message 
news:OVww$x9WFHA.2540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Good analysis, Ed, and a good procedure for others to follow in analyzing 
their own scenarios.

Regarding cached mode having problems at 700MB, do you have any similar 
empirical evidence? I've dicussed this with Microsoft, and they said that 
they've backed off their initial warnings that cached mode .ost files 
greater than 1GB could be a problem.

-- 
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
     Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
     Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
     http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"Ed Woodrick"  wrote in message 
news:unMe2Q9WFHA.2060@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Peter's advice is absolutely, positively wrong. Users absolutely will not
> use whatever their limit is.
>
> The normal allocation is that about 90% of your users will use 10% of your
> storage and 10% of your users will use about 90% of your space. I've seen
> this ratio in a large number of organizations. Some users don't like
> mailboxes with anything in them, so they delete automatically, just as 
> some
> users don't like cluttered desks, so they don't have reams of paper in
> drawers.
>
> I was recently at an organization that had many, many users. They were
> looking at putting user limits in place, they currently had no limits. So
> they were trying to decide what the limit should be. They had thrown 
> around
> all sorts of numbers, 5, 10, 50 MB and just couldn't get a good answer. So 
> I
> recommended that they total up the current storage and see how much data 
> per
> user that they were currently using. While this was an organization that 
> had
> a lighter than normal email load, their average storage was 7MB per 
> user!!!
> That's with the users having an unlimited store!!!  So by implementing a
> 10MB limit, what they were guaranteeing is that they would make 10% of 
> their
> users rather mad just for the heck of it.
>
> Server based storage is really cheap. It's the best place for email to be
> and it it normally backed up and cared for better than any other data
> depository in an organization. Exchange has no issues with large mailboxes
> (although cache mode starts getting upset at 700MB or so) and single
> instance store makes for very efficient storage.
>
> Remember, that as IT, your job is a SUPPORT role, not a DICTATOR role. 
> Size
> your servers appropriately for what you expect the utilization will be and
> then turn your recommendation over to management to fund. If they want to
> pay for it, let them. If they want to decrease costs, then let them make 
> the
> limits.
>
>
> "Peter D. Hipson" <mcn01 at hipson dot net> wrote in message
> news:gi5a8197kbc20t3dc5q2nje8panjng4mh5@4ax.com...
>>
>> Second: if you give them 1.5 gig, they will use 1.5 gig. That is, they
>> will never, ever, delete old emails, never clean up their email
>> folders, and such.
>>
>> Limits are vital if you have more than a handful of users. I usually
>> suggest that 'normal' users have a mailbox size between 25 and 150 MB.
>> If they need more than 150 MB, make them justify it (and don't accept
>> that 'I get lots of email' as justification.)
>>
>> Post a sign at the IT desk: maximum mail box size is XXX, please do
>> not ask for more! that may help. If you find users are successfully
>> going over your head to force larger mail boxes, consider that you are
>> workign for the wrong company.
>>
>> IMHO, 1.5G is way too much. That would allow a user to have, for
>> example, to have over 60,000 messages 25K in size each.
>>
>> Make sure your users realize that exchange is not the place to archive
>> or store stuff off-line, so to speak. That only works in Dilbert
>> cartoons. <bg>
>> PeterD, the Darkstar Network
>> To email, fix my address!
>> ExpertZone!
>
>

The folks I talked to indicated that the number of items in any given folder may have the greatest effect on performance. I imagine that also applies to the overall number of folders. 

FWIW, if you choose File | Work Offline and keep it set that way, you can sync on a schedule and get the ability to choose which folders sync. -- 
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
     Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for 
     Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
     http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"Ed Woodrick"  wrote in message news:uBFxs7IXFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The limit is somewhat based on the historical PST issues that start around 
> that number.
> 
> But from earlier testing, my performance seemed to start declining in the 
> neighborhood. It seems as if the amount of housekeeping and traversing > through directory trees just start getting too ugly above those numbers.
> 
> But I'd love to be proven wrong.
> 
> Of course it would also be nice if I could mark at least one folder tree 
> (called archive?) to not be synchronized to my client and take up disk > space.
> 
> 
> 
> "Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]"  wrote in message 
> news:OVww$x9WFHA.2540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Good analysis, Ed, and a good procedure for others to follow in analyzing 
> their own scenarios.
> 
> Regarding cached mode having problems at 700MB, do you have any similar 
> empirical evidence? I've dicussed this with Microsoft, and they said that 
> they've backed off their initial warnings that cached mode .ost files 
> greater than 1GB could be a problem.

> 
> "Ed Woodrick"  wrote in message 
> news:unMe2Q9WFHA.2060@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Peter's advice is absolutely, positively wrong. Users absolutely will not
>> use whatever their limit is.
>>
>> The normal allocation is that about 90% of your users will use 10% of your
>> storage and 10% of your users will use about 90% of your space. I've seen
>> this ratio in a large number of organizations. Some users don't like
>> mailboxes with anything in them, so they delete automatically, just as 
>> some
>> users don't like cluttered desks, so they don't have reams of paper in
>> drawers.
>>
>> I was recently at an organization that had many, many users. They were
>> looking at putting user limits in place, they currently had no limits. So
>> they were trying to decide what the limit should be. They had thrown 
>> around
>> all sorts of numbers, 5, 10, 50 MB and just couldn't get a good answer. So 
>> I
>> recommended that they total up the current storage and see how much data 
>> per
>> user that they were currently using. While this was an organization that 
>> had
>> a lighter than normal email load, their average storage was 7MB per 
>> user!!!
>> That's with the users having an unlimited store!!!  So by implementing a
>> 10MB limit, what they were guaranteeing is that they would make 10% of 
>> their
>> users rather mad just for the heck of it.
>>
>> Server based storage is really cheap. It's the best place for email to be
>> and it it normally backed up and cared for better than any other data
>> depository in an organization. Exchange has no issues with large mailboxes
>> (although cache mode starts getting upset at 700MB or so) and single
>> instance store makes for very efficient storage.
>>
>> Remember, that as IT, your job is a SUPPORT role, not a DICTATOR role. 
>> Size
>> your servers appropriately for what you expect the utilization will be and
>> then turn your recommendation over to management to fund. If they want to
>> pay for it, let them. If they want to decrease costs, then let them make 
>> the
>> limits.
>>
>>
>> "Peter D. Hipson" <mcn01 at hipson dot net> wrote in message
>> news:gi5a8197kbc20t3dc5q2nje8panjng4mh5@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Second: if you give them 1.5 gig, they will use 1.5 gig. That is, they
>>> will never, ever, delete old emails, never clean up their email
>>> folders, and such.
>>>
>>> Limits are vital if you have more than a handful of users. I usually
>>> suggest that 'normal' users have a mailbox size between 25 and 150 MB.
>>> If they need more than 150 MB, make them justify it (and don't accept
>>> that 'I get lots of email' as justification.)
>>>
>>> Post a sign at the IT desk: maximum mail box size is XXX, please do
>>> not ask for more! that may help. If you find users are successfully
>>> going over your head to force larger mail boxes, consider that you are
>>> workign for the wrong company.
>>>
>>> IMHO, 1.5G is way too much. That would allow a user to have, for
>>> example, to have over 60,000 messages 25K in size each.
>>>
>>> Make sure your users realize that exchange is not the place to archive
>>> or store stuff off-line, so to speak. That only works in Dilbert
>>> cartoons. <bg>
>>> PeterD, the Darkstar Network
>>> To email, fix my address!
>>> ExpertZone!
>>
>> 
> 
>

Ok, I'm confused now - I thought the new GREAT THING about Outlook2003 and 
..ost files were they could grow to infinity (we'll, there was not hard 2GB 
limit like .PST.)

Unless you are talking about older versions of Outlook and .ost  (and if so, 
please disregard...)

-Blake
"Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]"  wrote in message 
news:en4owAJXFHA.1384@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
The folks I talked to indicated that the number of items in any given folder 
may have the greatest effect on performance. I imagine that also applies to 
the overall number of folders.

FWIW, if you choose File | Work Offline and keep it set that way, you can 
sync on a schedule and get the ability to choose which folders sync.
-- 
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
     Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
     Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
     http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"Ed Woodrick"  wrote in message 
news:uBFxs7IXFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The limit is somewhat based on the historical PST issues that start around
> that number.
>
> But from earlier testing, my performance seemed to start declining in the
> neighborhood. It seems as if the amount of housekeeping and traversing
> through directory trees just start getting too ugly above those numbers.
>
> But I'd love to be proven wrong.
>
> Of course it would also be nice if I could mark at least one folder tree
> (called archive?) to not be synchronized to my client and take up disk
> space.
>
>
>
> "Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]"  wrote in message
> news:OVww$x9WFHA.2540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Good analysis, Ed, and a good procedure for others to follow in analyzing
> their own scenarios.
>
> Regarding cached mode having problems at 700MB, do you have any similar
> empirical evidence? I've dicussed this with Microsoft, and they said that
> they've backed off their initial warnings that cached mode .ost files
> greater than 1GB could be a problem.

>
> "Ed Woodrick"  wrote in message
> news:unMe2Q9WFHA.2060@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Peter's advice is absolutely, positively wrong. Users absolutely will not
>> use whatever their limit is.
>>
>> The normal allocation is that about 90% of your users will use 10% of 
>> your
>> storage and 10% of your users will use about 90% of your space. I've seen
>> this ratio in a large number of organizations. Some users don't like
>> mailboxes with anything in them, so they delete automatically, just as
>> some
>> users don't like cluttered desks, so they don't have reams of paper in
>> drawers.
>>
>> I was recently at an organization that had many, many users. They were
>> looking at putting user limits in place, they currently had no limits. So
>> they were trying to decide what the limit should be. They had thrown
>> around
>> all sorts of numbers, 5, 10, 50 MB and just couldn't get a good answer. 
>> So
>> I
>> recommended that they total up the current storage and see how much data
>> per
>> user that they were currently using. While this was an organization that
>> had
>> a lighter than normal email load, their average storage was 7MB per
>> user!!!
>> That's with the users having an unlimited store!!!  So by implementing a
>> 10MB limit, what they were guaranteeing is that they would make 10% of
>> their
>> users rather mad just for the heck of it.
>>
>> Server based storage is really cheap. It's the best place for email to be
>> and it it normally backed up and cared for better than any other data
>> depository in an organization. Exchange has no issues with large 
>> mailboxes
>> (although cache mode starts getting upset at 700MB or so) and single
>> instance store makes for very efficient storage.
>>
>> Remember, that as IT, your job is a SUPPORT role, not a DICTATOR role.
>> Size
>> your servers appropriately for what you expect the utilization will be 
>> and
>> then turn your recommendation over to management to fund. If they want to
>> pay for it, let them. If they want to decrease costs, then let them make
>> the
>> limits.
>>
>>
>> "Peter D. Hipson" <mcn01 at hipson dot net> wrote in message
>> news:gi5a8197kbc20t3dc5q2nje8panjng4mh5@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> Second: if you give them 1.5 gig, they will use 1.5 gig. That is, they
>>> will never, ever, delete old emails, never clean up their email
>>> folders, and such.
>>>
>>> Limits are vital if you have more than a handful of users. I usually
>>> suggest that 'normal' users have a mailbox size between 25 and 150 MB.
>>> If they need more than 150 MB, make them justify it (and don't accept
>>> that 'I get lots of email' as justification.)
>>>
>>> Post a sign at the IT desk: maximum mail box size is XXX, please do
>>> not ask for more! that may help. If you find users are successfully
>>> going over your head to force larger mail boxes, consider that you are
>>> workign for the wrong company.
>>>
>>> IMHO, 1.5G is way too much. That would allow a user to have, for
>>> example, to have over 60,000 messages 25K in size each.
>>>
>>> Make sure your users realize that exchange is not the place to archive
>>> or store stuff off-line, so to speak. That only works in Dilbert
>>> cartoons. <bg>
>>> PeterD, the Darkstar Network
>>> To email, fix my address!
>>> ExpertZone!
>>
>>
>
>

Not infinity -- 20GB is the default maximum size. 33 terabytes is the hard maximum. 

I think the point we're discussing is that there can still be performance issues related to the number of items and subfolders in the mailbox. The integrity of the new .ost file, however, is much, much higher, so corruption should never be a problem. 

While your mileage may vary, you can expect a much more satisfying experience with the new .ost file. 

-- 
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
     Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for 
     Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
     http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx


"Galvanon" <galvanon@online.nospam> wrote in message news:%23GZzXVWXFHA.2776@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Ok, I'm confused now - I thought the new GREAT THING about Outlook2003 and 
> .ost files were they could grow to infinity (we'll, there was not hard 2GB 
> limit like .PST.)
> 
> Unless you are talking about older versions of Outlook and .ost  (and if so, 
> please disregard...)
> 
> -Blake
> "Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]"  wrote in message 
> news:en4owAJXFHA.1384@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> The folks I talked to indicated that the number of items in any given folder 
> may have the greatest effect on performance. I imagine that also applies to 
> the overall number of folders.
> 
> FWIW, if you choose File | Work Offline and keep it set that way, you can 
> sync on a schedule and get the ability to choose which folders sync.

> 
> "Ed Woodrick"  wrote in message 
> news:uBFxs7IXFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> The limit is somewhat based on the historical PST issues that start around
>> that number.
>>
>> But from earlier testing, my performance seemed to start declining in the
>> neighborhood. It seems as if the amount of housekeeping and traversing
>> through directory trees just start getting too ugly above those numbers.
>>
>> But I'd love to be proven wrong.
>>
>> Of course it would also be nice if I could mark at least one folder tree
>> (called archive?) to not be synchronized to my client and take up disk
>> space.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]"  wrote in message
>> news:OVww$x9WFHA.2540@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>> Good analysis, Ed, and a good procedure for others to follow in analyzing
>> their own scenarios.
>>
>> Regarding cached mode having problems at 700MB, do you have any similar
>> empirical evidence? I've dicussed this with Microsoft, and they said that
>> they've backed off their initial warnings that cached mode .ost files
>> greater than 1GB could be a problem.
> 
>>
>> "Ed Woodrick"  wrote in message
>> news:unMe2Q9WFHA.2060@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>>> Peter's advice is absolutely, positively wrong. Users absolutely will not
>>> use whatever their limit is.
>>>
>>> The normal allocation is that about 90% of your users will use 10% of 
>>> your
>>> storage and 10% of your users will use about 90% of your space. I've seen
>>> this ratio in a large number of organizations. Some users don't like
>>> mailboxes with anything in them, so they delete automatically, just as
>>> some
>>> users don't like cluttered desks, so they don't have reams of paper in
>>> drawers.
>>>
>>> I was recently at an organization that had many, many users. They were
>>> looking at putting user limits in place, they currently had no limits. So
>>> they were trying to decide what the limit should be. They had thrown
>>> around
>>> all sorts of numbers, 5, 10, 50 MB and just couldn't get a good answer. 
>>> So
>>> I
>>> recommended that they total up the current storage and see how much data
>>> per
>>> user that they were currently using. While this was an organization that
>>> had
>>> a lighter than normal email load, their average storage was 7MB per
>>> user!!!
>>> That's with the users having an unlimited store!!!  So by implementing a
>>> 10MB limit, what they were guaranteeing is that they would make 10% of
>>> their
>>> users rather mad just for the heck of it.
>>>
>>> Server based storage is really cheap. It's the best place for email to be
>>> and it it normally backed up and cared for better than any other data
>>> depository in an organization. Exchange has no issues with large 
>>> mailboxes
>>> (although cache mode starts getting upset at 700MB or so) and single
>>> instance store makes for very efficient storage.
>>>
>>> Remember, that as IT, your job is a SUPPORT role, not a DICTATOR role.
>>> Size
>>> your servers appropriately for what you expect the utilization will be 
>>> and
>>> then turn your recommendation over to management to fund. If they want to
>>> pay for it, let them. If they want to decrease costs, then let them make
>>> the
>>> limits.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Peter D. Hipson" <mcn01 at hipson dot net> wrote in message
>>> news:gi5a8197kbc20t3dc5q2nje8panjng4mh5@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> Second: if you give them 1.5 gig, they will use 1.5 gig. That is, they
>>>> will never, ever, delete old emails, never clean up their email
>>>> folders, and such.
>>>>
>>>> Limits are vital if you have more than a handful of users. I usually
>>>> suggest that 'normal' users have a mailbox size between 25 and 150 MB.
>>>> If they need more than 150 MB, make them justify it (and don't accept
>>>> that 'I get lots of email' as justification.)
>>>>
>>>> Post a sign at the IT desk: maximum mail box size is XXX, please do
>>>> not ask for more! that may help. If you find users are successfully
>>>> going over your head to force larger mail boxes, consider that you are
>>>> workign for the wrong company.
>>>>
>>>> IMHO, 1.5G is way too much. That would allow a user to have, for
>>>> example, to have over 60,000 messages 25K in size each.
>>>>
>>>> Make sure your users realize that exchange is not the place to archive
>>>> or store stuff off-line, so to speak. That only works in Dilbert
>>>> cartoons. <bg>
>>>> PeterD, the Darkstar Network
>>>> To email, fix my address!
>>>> ExpertZone!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
> 
>