# exchange 2013 design questions for 11k mailboxes

working on a design for 11k mailboxes.

Mailbox size :
>       average and largest mailbox sizes

Average used:   120MB
Largest used:     15GB

the current total mailstore for all mailboxes is 6.5TB
the current used mailstore for all mailboxes is 2.6TB

Sent: 23,261

the average size over all messages, including those with attachments, is approximately 138KB.

default mailbox limit is 300mb but can be upt0 25GB if request is approved.

so if I do the mailbox size of 300MB
the received messages of (rounding up) 87000

white space  would be 87000 x 100/1024 = 8.8GB
dumpster space =  white space x 30 days = approx. 25GB
so mailbox size = mbx limit + white space + dumpster = 33.5GB

each database will be kept to approx. 1TB

so based on that could only do about 33 mailboxes per database.

Is that correct ? seems so low, is my math correct ?

if I go by those calculations I would have roughly 330 databases,  that's just ridiculous.

if I could do approx. 100 -150 mailboxes per database at least I could get the DB down to around 80 and in an Active/active scenario spread it out to about 40 per DAG if I run 2 DAGs.

Is this correct or am I off with the calculations ?

I was thinking of doing 2 DAGs  each with 5 mailbox servers.

currently across 2 sites

as far as the 2013 CAS servers can an F5 or similar load balancer in front of 3 CAS servers each with 4processors and 32GB of ram handle the requests or do I need to add additional CAS servers ? I was thinking an F5 with 3 CAS servers in each site.

mailbox servers
###### Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Commented:
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by