|
The Fool posted:So, after doing some stuff with eseutil, I am getting an error in event viewer that says the db is not mounting because the site and org name are different. After doing some research it appears the only way to resolve this without any downtime on the customers part is going to be: Yes. I have had to do this before, and this was the only way I found to fix it.
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
I had a similar issue where RPC users had to be in the office before their account would work. It was due to an Exchange/Domain Controller issue, where the Exchange proxy service wasn't able to talk to the domain controller to find their user name. When you're local, your PC just goes to the DC directly. I had to add a whole bunch of registry entries to get that communication working again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 23:17
|
|
|
I have seen this issue pop up on Exchange 2010, and I am wondering if any of you have seen it or know of a fix. A user sends an email to say 10 external recipients. 9 of those 10 recipients are valid, but 1 of them isn't. The email goes out to the 9 mailboxes, but the 10th one gets rejected (with say a 4xx or 5xx error) and the entire message goes back in the Exchange queue. A minute later, the email goes out again to the 9 mailboxes, but the 10th one gets rejected. Repeat indefinitely until the 9 working users all get TONS of copies of the email, while the messages is still stuck in my Exchange queue waiting on the 10th person's mailbox to start working. It seems like Exchange doesn't split the message into 10 different pieces, but rather sends it as one big push and will restart from scratch any time one piece of the push fails.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:This isn't typical. The bad recipient should generate an NDR that gets kicked back to the sender and that is it. I've not seen it behave any other way. Even if it is sent to a distro group with external contacts as members, and one of those contacts is bad it should gracefully kick back an NDR to the sender. We are relaying through a smarthost outbound (Postini), but the message definitely gets stuck in our queue and keeps retrying. If the error code we get back is serious (e.g. no such mailbox) it works fine, but if the error code is like "Please Retry Later" then it just keeps trying. I will see if it occurs if we don't relay through Postini. Thanks for the tip.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Actually, I recommend keeping your 2010 stores/databases as large as possible. Every new store you introduce also introduces another maintenance thread, which consumes IOPS constantly throughout the day. I read a great article from NetApp about their SAN testing with Exchange 2010. They had to host something like 20 TB of mail and get a certain level of performance/latency out of it to be certified by Microsoft. When they were using all 500 GB databases (so 40 in total), they couldn't meet Microsoft's requirements for latency, because of all of the maintenance threads consuming IOPS. When they consolidated databases and shrunk down to 10 databases of 2 TB each, they passed the test with flying colors. Exchange 2010 is designed to constantly utilize your disks for maintenance rather than trying to cram a LOT of IOPS into a maintenance window. Every database you add means that another maintenance thread starts as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
Spamtron7000 posted:Thanks. That sounds great. I can see how it sounds like a strange question so I'll describe my requirements. We run a hosted Exchange environment for many different small companies who are affiliated with the parent company (my company) but not affiliated with one another. We have an SPLA agreement with Microsoft to support this. I really hate that the members of the small companies can see each other - in fact sometimes it's bad for business because they like to get together and bash us behind our backs Actually, GAL separation is in Exch2010 SP2. http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2011/01/27/3411882.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/manjubn/archive/2012/01/05/exchange-2010-sp2-addressbook-policies-best-practices.aspx
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Be careful with doing a clustered CAS/HT front-end server if you're still running Outlook 2003, I ran into an issue with it that required Outlook 2003 SP3 which wasn't compatible with some business apps and so we had to kill the cluster.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Linux Nazi posted:IIRC there's a problem with public folder connections and static RPC ports, but if you are moving to a DAG you can no longer utilize public folders anyways. This is also why you do not have to worry about Outlook 2003, it requires public folders to operate, and public folders cannot be made highly available, or be included in a DAG. So you will be removing any Outlook 2003 clients prior to building it out. You can have Public Folders and have a DAG, your PFs just won't fail over (which may or may not be acceptable).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 01:02
|
|
|
This is probably a good thread for this question: Mail filtering. Currently we use Postini, but there's a rumor going around that they might be going the way of the dodo. We're trying to find a good option that provides inbound/outbound filtering, is located in the cloud, and has perks (like outbound encryption, etc). A major required feature would be the ability to host multiple domains/customers underneath one account. We have heard of a good solution, MX Logic, but I wanted to see if anyone has any good/bad experiences with MX Logic or if there's another service they'd recommend. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Powdered Toast Man posted:I loving HATE NETAPP SNAPMANAGER FOR EXCHANGE. Why is that? I have found doing SMBR restores to be the best thing since sliced bread. You just have to have your LUN and DB/Log layout set up and you're good to go.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
Frozen-Solid posted:With a server like Exchange, how would you determine if you need more memory or not? I know the database will do it's best to cache as much as it can, but does it ever reach a point where it doesn't feel like it has to keep sucking up memory for caching? It will chew up a lot of memory, but that's normal. You can use the Microsoft sizing guides to figure out how much memory your environment should need. How many users do you have, and what's your mailbox count (and total DB size)?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Frozen-Solid posted:We're relatively tiny. 75 mailboxes, total mailbox DB size is 25 GB. The minimum for a single server with all 4 roles was 10 GB, which is what I gave the VM to start with. My original sizing estimates based on Microsoft's guides were 8-12 GB. We're not using Unified Messaging, so 2 GB for each role + 2 GB cache made 8 GB. The consulting company we hire insisted we absolutely couldn't make an Exchange server without 16 GB of memory which seems ridiculous to me. 10 GB is more than plenty for your environment. I have one client environment with 150 mailboxes and about a 100 GB database running on a single 8 GB server without issue. I would keep an eye on the event logs but wouldn't concern myself with that at all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Syano posted:Keep in mind 2 server dag only gives you ha of your info stores. If one server of the two dies no one is still going to get email because you haven't got ha of your cas role. Only supported way to get ha of your cas role is thru a cas array which uses NLb which does not Coexist with a dag cluster. You can futz around it with some ad trickery but just know what you're doing before you try I didn't think you could even do a DAG at all with the CAS/HT roles installed on the MB servers. I thought both MB servers had to be pure for that to work?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 08:45 |
|
|
MigrationWiz is baller as hell. Used it like 40-50 times to move people to my last company's hosted Exchange environment, off of a ton of random services, from local Exchange to 365, from 365 to our hosted Exchange, etc. Works like a charm, easy pricing, etc. Highly recommend.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 18:51
|
|