Exchange 2007 Standard Edition – Managing your servers can streamline the performance of your team by allowing them to complete complex tasks faster. Plus, it can enable them to detect problems early on before they get out of hand and compromise your business. As a result, the risk of experiencing operational setbacks is drastically lower.
But the only way to make the most of your server management is to perform it correctly. And to help you do so, this article will share nine tips on improving your server management and fix some problem about windows, windows-server-2008, exchange-2007, , .
We Have :
- Exchange 2007 Standard Edition
- IBM System X3650
- 2 x Intel Xeon 5430 2.66 GHz
- Version 8.1 Build 240.6
- Mailbox, Hub Transport, Client Access Role Installed on One Box
- Total Number of Mailboxes : 110 – 130
6 Physical Disks
- Disk 0,1 (68 GB) = Raid-1, OS Partition ( C: Partition)
- Disk 2,3 (279GB) = Raid-1, Exchange Database (First and Second Storage Groups) ( D: Partition )
- Disk 4,5 (68 GB) = Raid-1, Exchange Transaction Logs ( E: Partition )
- Storage Groups : D:First Storage groupMailbox database.edb
- Storage Groups : D:Second Storage GroupPublic Folder Database.edb
- Transaction Logs : E Partition
On our D Partition (Mailbox Database Partition), total size is 279 GB, free space remaining is 64.7 GB, when I select the first storage group and second storage group folders and right click properties they report a size of 165 GB.
Mailbox database reports a size of 157GB when right clicked > Properties. where as the size displayed in the folder is 164,893,456 KB
So, we are missing around 50-54 GB, there is nothing else on these drives, no page file, nothing at all.
The partition housing the Transaction logs is reporting the sizes accurately.
Any suggestions / fixes on the above ?
As you may have already read in Problem 1, the size of the mailbox database is 157GB or 164GB reported; which is not recommended,
a) What would you suggest we should do to divide mailboxes in storage groups on this same server ?
b) How would we move mailboxes into different storage groups ?
c) This is the information store size ? (Am I right in thinking that this is not recommended)
d) Having multiple storage groups with one Mailbox DB in each, would that reduce the size of the Information Store?
e) Any suggestions / how-to reduce the size of information store ?
We didn’t install this, we have inherited this – what other recommendations you can make in order to keep ourselves better prepared for any server disaster?
We are backing up with Yosemite Backup on RD1000 (320GB) at the moment, which is backing up successfully, flushing the logs daily. We haven’t done a test restore YET.
I have tried to provide as much info as possible, please let me know if you need further info.
Also, we haven’t yet faced any problems in mailflow, access speeds, everything is working fine, we have two to five people accessing OWA or Outlook via vpn only.
Thanks for your time to read the above – will look forward to your expert suggestions.
These are my opinions so take them as such:
Stop the Microsoft Software Shadow Copy Provider and Volume Shadow Copy services. I suspect you have some leftover VSS snapshots that are taking up the disk space.
Create additional Mailbox Stores in your current Storage Group and split your mailboxes accordingly by moving some number of them to the new Mailbox Stores. Create as many Mailbox Stores as you feel is neccessary to keep the size reasonable. On Exchange Server 2003 it’s recommended to keep the Mailbox Stores under 100GB, I’m assuming the same holds true for Exchange Server 2007. I don’t see any need to create additional Storage Groups.
I haven’t yet seen any size restrictions on db’s or storage groups, only recommended RAM per storage group. It’s recommended that you place different DBs each in their own storage group, because each storage group only has one set of transactions logs, no matter how many databases it may contain. You’re going to be limited to 5 with Standard, so depending on your DB growth, this may influence your planning.
I’m a big fan of RAID5 for Exchange, myself, I’d add another disk to those volumes. Redundancy and maximum uptime by far outstrips excessive speed for email in my book.