Rajesh Koneru
asked on
Exchange Migration 2007 to 2013
We are planing to migrate ms exchange server 2007 to 2013 for 500 mail boxes. Existing we have 160GB database for 500 user. Please let me know the how much size is required for 2013 database.
Mail size with Attachment: When mail is being addressed to multiple mail IDs, the mail size proportionately increases. is it true ? if so any workaround to maintain the mail size similar to 2007?
Mail size with Attachment: When mail is being addressed to multiple mail IDs, the mail size proportionately increases. is it true ? if so any workaround to maintain the mail size similar to 2007?
Also don't forget that Exchange 2013 uses approximately 70% less disk IO and there is also compression.
I would factor a growth of roughly 30% up to 50% for the mailbox database size as I have seen from first hand experience. As Abdul stated above, Single Instance Storage was removed from Exchange 2010 and it is not there in Exchange 2013 either. This means for any email containing an attachment that gets sent to a distribution group or to multiple email addresses, a copy of the attachment is delivered to each mailbox. There's no real workaround unfortunately - Microsoft are trying to push everyone onto using lower-cost storage for mailbox servers, which does make sense as long as you've planned your new Exchange environment properly and licensing isn't a factor.
ASKER
Thanks for update.
we are planing for install this exchange on VM ware. please give suggestion about server sizing for 750 mail boxes.
we are planing for install this exchange on VM ware. please give suggestion about server sizing for 750 mail boxes.
You can use this calculator that has been created by the Exchange team over at Microsoft to achieve this: http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2013/05/14/released-exchange-2013-server-role-requirements-calculator.aspx
ASKER
hi,
our present exchange 2007 database size is 160GB for 520 mail boxes, how much disk space is required to migrate this 520 mail boxes. If i calculate using tool it showing more disk space percent we are not having that much size.
our present exchange 2007 database size is 160GB for 520 mail boxes, how much disk space is required to migrate this 520 mail boxes. If i calculate using tool it showing more disk space percent we are not having that much size.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
Thanks for reply, can i consider 500GB database for 750 mail boxes in new server . if possible please give any calculation formula.
ASKER
we are planing to implement DAG configuration for this exchange 2013, then how much disk size is required for database
Assuming you are going to have one copy of the database you need 1TB (500GB for primary copy and 500GB for secondary copy).
500GB for database should be ok. If mailboxes limits are not already in place try to get them in set up. This will control the database growth.
500GB for database should be ok. If mailboxes limits are not already in place try to get them in set up. This will control the database growth.
ASKER
Thanks for your inputs. We are HP Data protector 6.2 for Exchange 2007 database and single mail box backup.
Now we are going to implement two mail box servers in DC and one mail box server in DR. Replication is configure using DAG. how many agents are required to take the backup mail box database and single mail box backup.
Now we are going to implement two mail box servers in DC and one mail box server in DR. Replication is configure using DAG. how many agents are required to take the backup mail box database and single mail box backup.
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
In Exchange 2010 and later if email sent with attachment to 10 people then there will be 10 copies of that email. Therefore, yes storage usage increases on Exchange database.
If you are not using DAG and can use SAN deduplication / mirroring then that could reduce storage size.