Re: chkdsk raid 5
Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> We do have an Exchange server (2003). To reduce the amount of space
> on our information store, we encouraged users to archive data.
Users shouldn't have anything to do with archiving -
Since
> this is a business, we prefer to have that data backed up as opposed
> to sitting on the user's hard drive.
Sure. And if it's important, it belongs in managed storage - which PST files
are not....
> Hence, the reason why we have
> the PST on the file server.
.....and this is entirely unsupported, has huge performance problems, and can
lead to data corruption.
> This begs a different question, what
> position does MS take on mailbox size? In the past, I have understood
> that anything over 1G or 2GB has been frowned upon.
There's no official MS take on this issue at all. Your mailbox quotas
depend entirely on your own needs, capacity, ability to back up and restore.
Read the link on why PST files are a supremely bad way to accomplish
archiving. If you need archiving you need Exchange-side software to do it -
ideally that writes to SQL. I'd try posting in
microsoft.public.exchange.admin for more help & suggestions on archive
products (include your versions & SP levels of everything). And also try
searching msexchange.org. Good luck!
>
>
>
> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:
>
>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> This does seem to be related to PSTs only.
>>>
>>
>> Ah. Well - you clearly already know that what you're doing is
>> unsupported, so I'm sure you understand that it's entirely possible
>> that this won't work & I can't really help you troubleshoot it. PST
>> files don't belong on your network at all. If you don't have
>> Exchange server, I suggest you look into a hosted Exchange solution.
>>
>> See
>> http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/Why-PST-=-BAD-/q/Why-PST-=-BAD/qid/1209
>>
>> Sorry 
>>>
>>>
>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>> It does not appear to have an effect on other files and folders,
>>>>> but other files and folders are not 2G+.
>>>>
>>>> Try working with some that *are*.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Joshua Bright <JoshuaBright@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I have been getting insufficent memory errors when I attempt to
>>>>>>> copy large pst files from our file and print server. This is
>>>>>>> also the case when I try to run scanpst (yes, I know there is no
>>>>>>> support for networked psts). My question is if it is ok to run
>>>>>>> chkdsk over a raid 5 volume? I have ran it in read only mode,
>>>>>>> but am concerned about possible corruption. Any words to the
>>>>>>> unwise on how to conduct preventative maintanance on a RAID 5
>>>>>>> volume?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Backing up a bit....do you have errors when you *don't* try to do
>>>>>> this with PST files?