Solved

Exchange 2013 Available Database Capacity < Total Quota Limits

Posted on 2014-03-04
6
338 Views
Last Modified: 2014-03-05
Is it possible to create mailbox databases in Exchange 2013 that are less than the total quota limits of the mailboxes within?

Here is the situation:  we are a smaller organization about to upgrade from E2007 to E2013.  Our current mailbox database (we only have one) is 144GB.  Because of this, our storage capacity on our new Exchange server is over 800GB, which we thought would be more than enough.  However, we offer 2GB storage quotas, and have 556 mailboxes, so the Exchange Server Role Requirements Calculator is spitting out a requirements of over 1.1TB for database storage alone, and that is after decreasing the quota on most of the mailboxes to just 1GB.

I realize we did this backwards, and I would like to not to replace a bunch of drives on a brand new server.  Because we know that most mailboxes won't ever use 2GB storage (the average mailbox size is < 250MB), is it possible to have mailbox databases that technically don't have enough storage for everyone to fill their quota?  Would it be a huge mistake to go that route, even if it is technically feasible?

Thanks in advance for your help.
0
Comment
Question by:ejscn
  • 3
  • 2
6 Comments
 
LVL 63

Accepted Solution

by:
Simon Butler (Sembee) earned 400 total points
ID: 39905867
Exchange doesn't care what the quota is or even look at the number of mailboxes. It will have no impact on the configuration of the server. The calculator is just that, and it works on the worst case scenario which is everyone using the maximum of their allowed quota, hence the storage required. In reality, you will not have all users using all of the space allowed.

Simon.
0
 
LVL 11

Assisted Solution

by:hecgomrec
hecgomrec earned 100 total points
ID: 39906528
I agree with Simon, the calculator multiplies the amount of mailboxes by the quota and that's why you get 1.2 TB of hard drive.


Now, you mentioned 1 Database and 556 mailboxes.  Please consider to spread out your mailboxes into more databases.  In case of failure it will be easy for you to recover the missing info and having databases to group departments, branches, etc. helps to speed up maintenance.

Imagine having everything in one hard drive that fails... the whole organization will suffer but if you split the databases and even put them in different hard drives only those on the affected drive will be affected the rest will continue working.

Also, if you keep too many logs files the amount of space increases.
0
 

Author Comment

by:ejscn
ID: 39906631
Thank you both for your help.  

Hecgomrec,  Our new server has 6 drives in a RAID 10 array that we were planning on partitioning into 10 drives - one for each database and log file.  We were only planning on using 4 databases and having a spare partition in case it's needed.  Would it be better to have separate physical discs for each database and log file?
0
How to improve team productivity

Quip adds documents, spreadsheets, and tasklists to your Slack experience
- Elevate ideas to Quip docs
- Share Quip docs in Slack
- Get notified of changes to your docs
- Available on iOS/Android/Desktop/Web
- Online/Offline

 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:hecgomrec
ID: 39906718
Planning... Planning!!!!


I personally have never created such a logical partition. I will create 3 RAIDs and 1 partition per logical drive.  In case of hardware failure (dead HD) it is pointless to have more than 1 partition they will be all affected.

I usually don't put more stress on the HD other than necessary, too many logical divisions on a virtual arrangement can open a door for failure and reduce performance.

Also, think about the following:  You had everything in 1 database before, how were you prepared for disaster?.  Will you better prepared this time just by having 3 HD and more databases to split the mailboxes?.

Again, every scenario is different and the way each IT person decide how to handle performance, functionality and recovery is also different.

My recommendation, base your decision on desire hard disk performance and fault tolerance you can afford and how much you trust and your backup plan.
0
 

Author Comment

by:ejscn
ID: 39906731
Thank you.  And agreed on the planning.  This is my first time moving to a new version of Exchange, and I made some assumptions I should not have made when purchasing the new server.  Thank you very much for your advice.
0
 
LVL 11

Expert Comment

by:hecgomrec
ID: 39906934
Is always a pleasure to help and pass knowledge.
0

Featured Post

Don't lose your head updating email signatures!

Do your end users still have the wrong email signature? Do email signature updates bore you or fill you with a sense of dread? You can make this a whole lot easier on yourself by trusting an Exclaimer email signature management solution. Over 50 million users do...so should you!

Join & Write a Comment

"Migrate" an SMTP relay receive connector to a new server using info from an old server.
Local Continuous Replication is a cost effective and quick way of backing up Exchange server data. The following article describes the steps required to configure Local Continuous Replication. Also, the article tells you how to restore from a backup…
Familiarize people with the process of utilizing SQL Server stored procedures from within Microsoft Access. Microsoft Access is a very powerful client/server development tool. One of the SQL Server objects that you can interact with from within Micr…
Familiarize people with the process of retrieving data from SQL Server using an Access pass-thru query. Microsoft Access is a very powerful client/server development tool. One of the ways that you can retrieve data from a SQL Server is by using a pa…

744 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

Need Help in Real-Time?

Connect with top rated Experts

13 Experts available now in Live!

Get 1:1 Help Now