Exchange - where email goes to die - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Exchange - where email goes to die

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Gyshall posted:

I think I did see something like that happen at one of my schools. It annoyed the headmaster so much I think we had to create a brand new mailbox/AD user for him, for some reason.

Disclaimer: This was a long time ago and I'm not sure if it is accurate.

I'm not sure what that'd fix, this seems to be an issue with emails sent from or to all users, as long as

The email was sent via Mail.app on Snow Leopard or Lion, and
The email is being viewed via Outlook 2007/2010/2013.

# ¿ Oct 31, 2012 19:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 08:58

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Lex Kramer posted:

Perhaps it has to do with whether the mailbox was created in Exchange 2003 vs. 2007/2010. That would explain why Gyshall's fix worked.

Definitely not, we have users that were created on 2007 that have this problem. The only tie so far is the sending email client.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2012 01:07

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Anyone trying out Outlook 2013 yet? I'm not getting any of the metadata on AD users from the GAL; no thumbnailPhoto, no organizational info (manager/title/department), etc.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2012 14:21

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

babies havin rabies posted:

I have been. Except for the thumbnailPhoto (which I admit I don't really know how to set), I get all that information. We're on Exchange 2010.

Huh. We're on Exchange 2007, but all that info's been showing up fine in 2003/2007 clients with the SocialConnector installed, and 2010 clients by default.

Guess I'll just wait and see if our Exchange 2010 migration magically fixes it.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2012 14:38

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

export-mailbox? I'm not sure about Unicode support but it's worth a quick test.

# ¿ Nov 19, 2012 13:24

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

From here:

quote:

If you have multiple GALs in your organization, only one GAL is displayed in the Outlook Address Book on a client computer. This address list displays as Global Address List, even if you specified a different name when you created it in Exchange Server 2007.

How do you actually know which GAL is being displayed for a given client? How do you control that?

# ¿ Nov 21, 2012 18:39

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Anyone have an alternative source for Exchange 2010 post-SP2 RU5? The official one has been broken for weeks.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2012 16:52

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

underlig posted:

Atleast this guy: http://blogs.technet.com/b/jribeiro...kb-2719800.aspx says
"UPDATE : Do not apply this RU yet !

More details in a few days..."

Ah, maybe they intentionally pulled it. I monitor the "You Had Me At EHLO" ( :suicide:

) RSS feed and they didn't mention anything about the release, or withdrawal of it.

# ¿ Nov 27, 2012 18:44

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Even more of a trivial case, but I used the ExDeploy guide for my 2007->2010 migration and yeah, incredibly painless. I do wish they'd spruce it up a bit with some helpful tips, i.e. "This might be a good time to check out how your Exchange 2007 send/receive connectors are set up!"

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 13:26

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Spamtron7000 posted:

Has anyone deployed MS12-080 for Exchange 2010 SP2 yet? My Exchange admin is pushing back on me stating difficulty with Update Rollup 5 - he says they're related. I can't find any information about it and I think he's just stalling me because generally he's a miserable lazy gently caress.

I asked about this RU before, since Microsoft's download links were broken, and underlig found this blogpost:

underlig posted:

Atleast this guy: http://blogs.technet.com/b/jribeiro...kb-2719800.aspx says
"UPDATE : Do not apply this RU yet !

More details in a few days..."

Microsoft pulled it almost immediately after it came out. It looks like RU5-v2 came out literally yesterday, so if he's resisting pushing the v2 of a wonky update into production the day after it came out, I'd cut him some slack.

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 21:09

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Spamtron7000 posted:

Get-OwaVirtualDirectory | where {$_.OwaVersion -eq 'Exchange2007' -or $_.OwaVersion -eq 'Exchange2010'} | Set-OwaVirtualDirectory -WebReadyDocumentViewingOnPublicComputersEnabled:$False -WebReadyDocumentViewingOnPrivateComputersEnabled:$False

Edit: It looks like this would disable all attachment previews so we probably won't do it. I was hoping it was just for some obscure Oracle files.

Yeah, see the list here

code:

Get-OwaVirtualDirectory | where {$_.OwaVersion -eq 'Exchange2007' -or $_.OwaVersion -eq 'Exchange2010'} | fl server,WebReadyFileTypes, WebReadyMimeTypes

# ¿ Dec 11, 2012 21:22

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

how can running get-help for a nonexistant cmdlet peg a w3wp process at 100% CPU utilization indefinitely on a brand new Exchange 2010 mailbox role server? That makes me very sad.

# ¿ Dec 14, 2012 16:05

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Sure!

code:

[PS] C:\Windows\system32>get-exchangeserver ex14mbx01 | select admindisplayversion

AdminDisplayVersion
-------------------
Version 14.2 (Build 247.5)

Not chewing up 100% today, but still :psyduck:

It just sits there like that until I crtl-C the get-help.

Mierdaan fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Dec 17, 2012

# ¿ Dec 17, 2012 17:46

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Will Styles posted:

Are you running your mailbox server on a vm? I saw similar results on my vm but not one of my physical boxes.

My physical boxes are considerably more beefy than my vm, so this just may be a result of having more CPU. Both are SP2 RU3

Edit: Also if I let it run it eventually errors out after a few minutes.

It's on a VM, yes. Can you check if you have indexing turned on on your C: drive on both?

Mierdaan fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Dec 17, 2012

# ¿ Dec 17, 2012 18:51

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Will Styles posted:

Indexing is turned on for both.

It's off per my VM template, and I don't have a physical box to test with. I thought maybe it was doing a lovely slow search of the drive looking for the fictitious cmdlet.

Mierdaan fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Dec 17, 2012

# ¿ Dec 17, 2012 19:02

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

What Exchange version are you migrating to?

We just did a migration from a all-in-one CAS/HT/MBX 2007 physical server to a multi-VM 2010 deployment, and the mailbox moves can happen during business hours just fine. The users generally just get a popup saying "Your Exchange Administrator has made a change that requires you to restart Outlook."

# ¿ Dec 18, 2012 17:40

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Powdered Toast Man posted:

Not moving to a new version; just a new server. I had wondered if they would get a message and have to restart Outlook. I guess that's not that big of a deal.

Easy way to find out: migrate a mailbox with Outlook open and connected to it

It should get redirected pretty seamlessly by the CAS though.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2012 17:47

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Powdered Toast Man posted:

Did that with a mailbox of substantial size and it seemed to work fine.

In other news, our main store is way too big, so I'm gonna have to break it up into multiple LUNs. FUN TIMES.

That's best practices anyway. Makes backups and recovery restores a lot less annoying.

Exchange 2010 will spread incoming mailbox moves across any non-provision-excluded (isExcludedFromProvisioning / isSuspendedFromProvisioning == $false) databases, so you don't have to worry about targeting them manually - but I don't think that existed in 2007

# ¿ Dec 18, 2012 18:12

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Moey posted:

Do you have a guide or anything you followed for this?

ExDeploy. It's pretty solid, just make sure you document what you have set up in your current environment (thinking send/receive connectors, OWA details, address lists/books, OAB, etc) and replicate that on the new environment since the guide glosses over those details. Plan out your sizing in advance too, since the guide skips those details completely.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2012 22:46

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Deleting the last PF database from my organization was at both incredibly frustrating (gently caress you non_ipm_subtree, why won't you delete?!) and satisfying.

# ¿ Jan 8, 2013 16:08

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Gyshall posted:

I envy you. What are you using in place of Public Folders?

Nothing! Hurrah!

Let me answer your question with a question: what are you using Public Folders for?

# ¿ Jan 9, 2013 19:37

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Gyshall posted:

Depends on the client, but usually Public Calendars, Public Contacts, Public Tasks, etc.

We're running on 2013 Exchange internally and use Shared Mailboxes, for what that is worth, but I'm not looking forward to investing the time and effort into teaching my clients how to use them instead of Public Folders (even though it is easy and straight forward as gently caress.)

In order: SharePoint, don't use 'em, SharePoint.

We've never used PFs here, all the way back to our first Exchange implementation on 2000, so getting rid of them was no big deal to us. Mostly it was our migration to 2010 and >=Outlook 2007 that let us ditch them.

# ¿ Jan 9, 2013 20:51

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Powdered Toast Man posted:

Is it really necessary to have scheduled maintenance run on every mailbox database every night? I ask because it's causing performance issues to have them all scheduled at the same time, although there seems to be some other stuff going on with that, as well. It doesn't really make sense to me for E2007 to suck down every bit of memory on a mailbox server as soon as scheduled maintenance starts, then gradually get worse over the next few hours until store.exe tanks when the server completely runs out of memory. Good times.

So spread the maintenance windows out so it's not defragging all the databases at the same time?

The maintenance process is a Good Thing, but you're just shooting yourself in the foot if you're running it against all the databases at once. You'll (probably) constrain yourself on disk IO and ensure that the maintenance processes never actually finish, and just end up restarting again the next day in a futile effort to complete. Check your event log for warnings about defrag processes not completing.

Also, the maintenance process was moved to a continuous background process in Exchange 2010, which is one of the many good reasons to upgrade if you can.

# ¿ Jan 15, 2013 16:11

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Does anyone know how the mailbox provisioning load balancer does its calculations in Exchange 2010? Here's 15 databases with 258 mailboxes migrated over from 2007 into IsExcludedFromProvisioning:$false databases:

code:

>$htmbx= @{}
>get-mailbox -server ex14mbx01 | ForEach-Object { $htmbx[$_.Database]++ }
>$htmbx.getenumerator() | sort-object Name

Name                           Value
----                           -----
ex14db01                       19
ex14db02                       17
ex14db03                       19
ex14db04                       20
ex14db05                       19
ex14db06                       18
ex14db07                       16
ex14db08                       13
ex14db09                       22
ex14db10                       15
ex14db11                       16
ex14db12                       18
ex14db13                       8
ex14db14                       22
ex14db15                       16

Some above the 17.2 mailboxes per database average you'd expect, some below.

Maybe it's by database size? Nope.

code:

>Get-MailboxDatabase -Status | ft name, databasesize -autosize

Name           DatabaseSize
----           ------------
ex14db01       35.63 GB (38,260,506,624 bytes)
ex14db02       12.63 GB (13,564,444,672 bytes)
ex14db03       31.63 GB (33,965,539,328 bytes)
ex14db04       41.38 GB (44,435,046,400 bytes)
ex14db05       41.13 GB (44,166,086,656 bytes)
ex14db06       22.76 GB (24,436,080,640 bytes)
ex14db07       19.01 GB (20,409,548,800 bytes)
ex14db08       6.508 GB (6,987,776,000 bytes)
ex14db09       13.51 GB (14,503,968,768 bytes)
ex14db10       17.38 GB (18,664,718,336 bytes)
ex14db11       5.383 GB (5,779,816,448 bytes)
ex14db12       12.51 GB (13,430,226,944 bytes)
ex14db13       10.13 GB (10,880,090,112 bytes)
ex14db14       29.01 GB (31,146,967,040 bytes)
ex14db15       11.76 GB (12,624,920,576 bytes)

New mailbox creations don't target either the database with the lowest mailbox count, or the database with the smallest database size. What else would it be using?

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 19:42

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Well, that's pretty silly. The Exchange 2010 help says:

Microsoft posted:

The IsExcludedFromProvisioning parameter specifies that this database is permanently not considered by the mailbox provisioning load balancer.

Not much of a load balancer, then.

# ¿ Feb 5, 2013 20:24

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Number19 posted:

Well not that TMG is being discontinues what are people planning on using to publish OWA/Activesync?

Also, Exchange 2010 SP2 Update Rollup V6 is failing to install just like 5v2 did

Haha, so glad it's still sitting unread in my RSS feed. I'll just wait for SP2 RU6v2 :smug:

edit: do you have WMF 3.0 installed?

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 21:15

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

What does it show if you check an affected user's timezone settings in OWA, under Regional?

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 21:19

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

What role server had its AM/PM set wrong? Did you restart the Exchange services on it after correcting it?

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 21:23

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Drighton posted:

One if the CAS, and no, that sounds like a good idea.

Don't forget about IIS then, or just reboot the whole damned thing.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 22:28

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Number19 posted:

No, I never installed it thankfully. I guess I'll wait for another revision or hopefully just SP3 instead.

Sounds like you're already aware, but I'll drop the blog entry here as a cautionary tale for anyone else who isn't aware that WMF 3.0 isn't supported with Exchange 2007/2010.

Microsoft posted:

Windows Management Framework 3.0 (specifically PowerShell 3.0) is not yet supported on any version of Exchange except Exchange Server 2013, which requires it. If you install Windows Management Framework 3.0 on a server running Exchange 2007 or Exchange 2010, you will encounter problems, such as Exchange update rollups that will not install, or the Exchange Management Shell may not run properly.

We have seen Exchange update rollups not installing with the following symptoms:

If rollup is installed through Microsoft Update, the installation might error with error code 80070643
If rollup is installed from a download, the error displayed is Setup ended prematurely because of an error.
In both cases, Event ID 1024 may be logged in the Application event log with the error error code �1603�.

# ¿ Feb 22, 2013 22:33

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Bitch Stewie posted:

This since somewhere it'll still be lurking within AD in 2020 even if you've been purchased sold and renamed half a dozen times

Just take your company name and ROT13 it, then it'll fit right in with all Exchange's other nonsense.

# ¿ Feb 23, 2013 18:20

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Make sure you get a SAN certificate that covers autodiscover.domain.tld, servername.domain.tld, mail.domain.tld. They're worth the extra cost to make sure people don't get SSL warnings periodically.

# ¿ Feb 26, 2013 17:38

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Frozen-Solid posted:

I came across my first little hiccup in Exchange 2010 today. I added "Send-As" permissions for a user to be able to send as a distribution group, but when trying to send an email as that group it returned a permissions error email. When I did this for myself, it worked with no problems. The only difference is that I never opened my own Outlook account nor did I set up Outlook until everything was already working. For this other user, they were using their email box for the past two hours before I added the permission change.

Is there some length of time it takes for a change like that to take effect in Outlook? I tried closing/reopening Outlook, as well as making the user reboot their computer but it didn't work. Finally I removed the account from Outlook and readded it, and everything worked immediately. I'm not sure what I did wrong, or if I just had to wait a bit longer?

To test if it's an issue with Outlook, or with Exchange permissions, try sending as the distribution group from OWA.

If it turns out to be an Outlook issue, try deleting the distribution group's address from the auto-complete cache (just arrow down to it when it pops up and hit the Delete key) and pick it off the address list again. Might want to specifically force a send/receive of the address book as well.

If it's an Exchange issue (i.e. it doesn't work in OWA either) it might be an old issue with the Information Store caching these permissions; I remember that from 2007 and I think the refresh was 120 minutes or you could restart the Information Store :psyduck:

# ¿ Feb 27, 2013 02:41

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Corvettefisher posted:

Yeah I have set them to all exact matches. Get-TransportConfig in EMS verifies my settings are correct as well.

Check your send-connectors; there's a limit there.

Remember the places that you can set size limits:

1) Organizational level
2) Send-connector
3) Receive-connector
4) User level
5) there were limits on the Storage Group or whatever in 2007 as well, weren't there?

edit: are you using an Edge Transport server? Make sure its send connector has a limit adjusted as well.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 16:24

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Briantist posted:

Any of you doing hosted exchange at appriver? Someone I know just moved a client to them recently, and the service is now down indefinitely. Appriver claims it was a bad update and their recommendation was to move to another hosted exchange provider.

hahaha what. No, but please tell us more as you hear about it.

# ¿ Mar 27, 2013 16:44

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Alfajor posted:

Finally migrated everything to Exchange 2010. Final step is to uninstall Exchange 2003 and turn off that 10-year old server. I can't find the media, and apparently I can't just do an "Add/Remove Programs" to uninstall... so, what do I download from Microsoft to get this taken care of? I've got "Exchange 2003 Standard Edition" listed on the Volume Licensing, and I've downloaded everything I can find, but nothing takes me to what I expect to see.

Google for "remove exchange 2003 adsiedit". You'll want to just power the server off, remove the computer object and rip out the references to it in adsiedit.

Did you leave the 2k3 server on for a while and check the messagetrackinglogs every few days to make sure nothing's using it anymore? Always a good idea before you start clobbering things with adsiedit.

# ¿ Apr 3, 2013 23:25

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Alfajor posted:

That Technet link: "Server Error in '/' Application."
I'll try it again later, but thanks.

Just pull the errant period out of the link: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb125110%28v=exchg.65%29.aspx

# ¿ Apr 4, 2013 20:39

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

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.

Since we're at 8.3/10GB right now, I'm not sure what actual % I should expect, or how I would tell if I SHOULD give it another few gigs. I obviously don't want to over allocate, since it's a VM and if it doesn't need it, it's not going to get it.

Memory's cheap and worrying about email is expensive. Just add more?

Look in the exchange management console toolkit, I think there's some performance monitoring thing in there. Also keep in mind that back pressure is a thing, so if exchange is really hard up for resources, and you're watching there eventlog, you will know about it.

Edit: awful app :arghfist:

Mierdaan fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Apr 5, 2013

# ¿ Apr 5, 2013 12:32

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

GFI MailArchiver. It's fine, and dirt-loving-cheap.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2013 04:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 08:58

Mierdaan: Sep 14, 2004; Pillbug

Internet Explorer posted:

Does anyone have any experiencing with the GFI Mail Archiver plugin for Outlook? How well does it work and how much of a pain is it to setup? Want to be able to archive emails automatically and then allow users to view them in Outlook without any trouble.

Last time I tried it, you had to muck with registry keys to make it useful. By default it pulls down headers for a pitifully small window, and polls the MARC server like crazy - but if you adjust those keys, it's okay I guess. I just trained my users to use the web interface since the search it has is better than Outlook's anyway.

# ¿ Apr 6, 2013 17:29

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > Exchange - where email goes to die

«‹›3 »