Go Premium for a chance to win a PS4. Enter to Win

x
  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 93
  • Last Modified:

exchange 2013

Exchange 2010 focused on 10-GB mailboxes with up to 100,000 items in a folder; Exchange 2013 considers a world in which a 100-GB mailbox and 1,000,000 items in a folder might be common

please advice that is above statement is correct or not?

Is CAS is still connecting connecting outlook internal users in exchange 2013 or they are connecting to mailbox servers now.
0
Exchange_Don
Asked:
Exchange_Don
5 Solutions
 
MASTechnical Department HeadCommented:
I am not 100% clear on your query.

If you are talking about the outlook getting disconnected or showing "connecting..." Please make sure your common name and autodiscover is pointed to Exchange2013
0
 
Exchange_DonAuthor Commented:
this is not a problem its an service request....
0
 
VB ITSCommented:
Exchange 2010 focused on 10-GB mailboxes with up to 100,000 items in a folder; Exchange 2013 considers a world in which a 100-GB mailbox and 1,000,000 items in a folder might be common

please advice that is above statement is correct or not?
Considering there is now no (theoretical) limit to the maximum number of messages per folder with Exchange 2013 then I would say this is true. See the Mailbox folder limits across Office 365 options section in this article for proof: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb124345(v=exchg.150).aspx
Is CAS is still connecting connecting outlook internal users in exchange 2013 or they are connecting to mailbox servers now
Yes Outlook still connects to the CAS but there have been some major changes with the CAS role in Exchange 2013, in that it now proxies the client request to the mailbox server where the data rendering occurs. There is no longer anything stored or queued on the CAS itself so it's basically a stateless server in that aspect.

See these links for more information:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-AU/library/dd298114(v=exchg.150).aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2013/01/25/exchange-2013-client-access-server-role.aspx
0
Technology Partners: We Want Your Opinion!

We value your feedback.

Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!

 
Gareth GudgerCommented:
Yes. 100GB mailboxes with 1 million items is entirely possible.

I highly recommend Ross Smith IV's keynote from MEC 2014 on Architecture. He explains the differences between 2010 to 2013. He also explains how improved I/O of the ESE engine has improved DB performance. So much so that Exchange 2013 uses 93% less I/O than Exchange 2003. Because of this Ross explains that they can focus on capacity versus IOPS.
http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MEC/2014/ARC302

IOPS reduction in different versions (Ross Smith slide from MEC 2014)
Slide2.jpg
Regarding your question on the MBX and CAS roles (this slide is also from Ross Smith's keynote at MEC 2014.)
RossSlide1.jpg
And one more slide from Ross Smith that you might find useful (MEC 2014)
RossSmithKeynote.jpg
0
 
Adam FarageEnterprise ArchCommented:
Exchange 2010 focused on 10-GB mailboxes with up to 100,000 items in a folder; Exchange 2013 considers a world in which a 100-GB mailbox and 1,000,000 items in a folder might be common

Thats a factual statement, and as Gareth pointed out this is due to the ESE modifications that were made (e.g: better indexing / searching, better ESE compression, on disk caching, ect). The real question here is *can the environment you create* support this..?

I would recommend to confirm with the client that yes, this is possible but you really should size out the environment based off the existing (meaning running statistic tools such as Get-MailboxReport: http://exchangeserverpro.com/get-mailboxreport-ps1-v1-02-released/ and MessageStats.ps1: http://blogs.technet.com/b/neiljohn/archive/2011/08/09/user-profile-analysis-for-exchange-server-2010.aspx from the previous exchange environment, and then throwing them into the Exchange 2013 role calculator) because although something *can* be supported, it is all up to the sizing and architecture to see if it *is* supported.
0
 
MASTechnical Department HeadCommented:
Totally Agree with Gareth and Adam.
Consider getting a a robust backup solution. More items in the mailbox the more chance for mailbox corruption and items missing.
0
 
Exchange_DonAuthor Commented:
I've requested that this question be closed as follows:

Accepted answer: 0 points for Exchange_Don's comment #a40520315
Assisted answer: 100 points for MAS's comment #a40520313
Assisted answer: 100 points for VB ITS's comment #a40520332
Assisted answer: 100 points for Gareth Gudger's comment #a40521062
Assisted answer: 100 points for Adam Farage's comment #a40521267
Assisted answer: 100 points for MAS's comment #a40521477

for the following reason:

this is not a problem its an service request....
0

Featured Post

Industry Leaders: We Want Your Opinion!

We value your feedback.

Take our survey and automatically be enter to win anyone of the following:
Yeti Cooler, Amazon eGift Card, and Movie eGift Card!

Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now