Exchange 2010 Best Practices - Database Purposing/Design

Posted on 2013-09-18
Medium Priority
Last Modified: 2014-01-12

We are going to be transitioning from a single Exchange 2003 Standard (physical) to a single Exchange 2010 Standard (on VMware).  As such, we get 5 DBs.  I'm looking to see what peeps have identified as best practices for designs, as I don't really concur with what is being proposed in our department and I want to see what the experts have to say.

We have 500 users/mailboxes.  We use Public Folders.  We will be using Archiving (and finally get rid of PSTs).  We're tentatively looking at 2GB mailboxes and 10GB Archive mailboxes (though only 10% of our users will use that volume).

I would think that you'd have 1 DB dedicated to user mailboxes, 1DB dedicated to Public Folders, and 1-2 DBs dedicated to Archive mailboxes, with a 3rd available as needed.

The proposed department solution is to have a user's primary and Archive mailbox on the same DB and balance the, across 4 DBs, with 1 DB still dedicated to Public Folders.  This seems like a nightmare to administer and inefficient use of the DBs.  

That said, I haven't used anything but Exchange 2003 for 10 years and have only read about Exchange 2010/2013.  I've looked into Exchange 2010/2013 Best Practices documents, and they are good about resources (CPU, memory, drive space, logging, etc), but I've been unable to find a clear design recommendation for database usage/allocation.

I appreciate any advice you experts can provide.

Thank you,


Oh, one other thing that is unrelated to the DBs, but may impact the project.  Our AD function level is 2003.  We will be raising it to 2008 (not R2) shortly.  Is there any benefit or impact to raising the functionality level before or after the implementation of Exchange 2010?

Thanks again.
Question by:Jer
  • 4
  • 2
LVL 36

Accepted Solution

Seth Simmons earned 200 total points
ID: 39503210
don't raise your domain/forest functional level until after your 2003 server is removed else it will break; keep it at 2003 until the migration is done.  exchange 2010 will work fine at 2003 level.  once the 2003 exchange server is removed, you can raise your functional level to 2008.

this will help to understand functional level features


Author Comment

ID: 39503282
Thanks for the good info Seth.  I would not have thought there would be a negative impact to Exchange 2003 by raising the functional level to 2008 (all DC are already at least Server 2008).  Of course, that is why I asked.  :-)

I presume that it is due to Exchange's integration with AD?
LVL 36

Expert Comment

by:Seth Simmons
ID: 39503313
haven't looked at it in more depth; just remember reading that raising it beyond 2003 will break exchange 2003.  the fact the domain controllers are 2008 functioning at 2003 level is fine in itself
Creating Active Directory Users from a Text File

If your organization has a need to mass-create AD user accounts, watch this video to see how its done without the need for scripting or other unnecessary complexities.


Author Comment

ID: 39509499
As I keep reading, I see that there are various designs.  MS suggests multiple servers.  We're pretty small, so we're just looking at 1 server.  If we were to have one of our Archive mailbox DBs on a different server, does that server need to have Exchange on it?  Also, I'm unclear how the Restore LUN works.  Is that a dedicated database or is it separate from the 5 allocated DBs?

I appreciate any assistance.

Thank you,


Assisted Solution

Jer earned 0 total points
ID: 39515930
OK, can someone provide any input?  I'm having a conference call with an MS VAR, and they are saying that MS recommends that a DB is no bigger than 100GB.  That seems crazy small.  They say that it is due to the speed of restores.  Is that for reality for anyone?  Are we crazy to think that we're going with 2GB mailboxes and 10GB Archive mailboxes for 500 users?  Is 500 mailboxes too large for MS Exchange Standard?  Is that too large for a single server?  I understand HA/redundancy for sure.  I'm just saying for initial function/performance.

Please advise.

Thank you,


Author Closing Comment

ID: 39774516
Frankly, nobody answered my question.  I just wanted to give Seth 100 for addressing part of it, but I don't see it worth 500.  I just don't see a reason to keep this open, as I have moved on.

Featured Post

Free Tool: Path Explorer

An intuitive utility to help find the CSS path to UI elements on a webpage. These paths are used frequently in a variety of front-end development and QA automation tasks.

One of a set of tools we're offering as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

Join & Write a Comment

In my humble opinion (IMHO), TouchDown from Symantec is the best in class for this type of application, but Symantec has end-of-lifed it and although one can keep using it, it will no longer be supported or upgraded.  Time to look for alternatives t…
There’s hardly a doubt that Business Communication is indispensable for both enterprises and small businesses, and if there is an email system outage owing to Exchange server failure, it definitely results in loss of productivity.
This is my first video review of Microsoft Bookings, I will be doing a part two with a bit more information, but wanted to get this out to you folks.
In this video I will demonstrate how to set up Nine, which I now consider the best alternative email app to Touchdown.

627 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question