Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

    Hello
    We currently have an Exchange 2003 Enterprise server.
    We upgraded from Standard due to the size limits of Stand Edition.
    We only use 1 storage group.
    My confusion in 2010 is, with my current setup, am I correct that I will only need Exchange 2010 Standard since the only difference between Std. & Enterprise is the # of databases you can have?
    I've not found any documentation that speaks of size limits.
    Can anyone help?
    Thanks,
    Adam

  • #2
    Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

    Yes, you are right, the only reason to take the Enterprise version of Exchange 2010 is the need of more then 5 databases, all other features are the same.

    Databases of the Standard edition are not limited in size you can even use the DAG feature for high availability as long as 5 databases are enough.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

      Thanks so much!
      I do plan to get more educated before making the move but just wanted to clarify.

      Are there any real world needs for more than 5 databases for a small business with around 90 users?

      Thanks,
      Adam

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

        It can be nice to separate users out into different databases based on which office they work at, or which department they're in, or management in one database. Reasons for this may include prioritising which users to restore first after an issue for example. With only 90 users though, I doubt you'll see any need for 5 databases let alone any more than that. Last summer I moved a company to Exchange 2007, and to keep things simple left all 40 users in one database.

        You can move mailboxes between storage groups easily enough, so you don't need to do it all at once. What I'd therefore suggest is putting everyone into one storage group at first, and then move them around later once you've evaluated your position.
        Gareth Howells

        BSc (Hons), MBCS, MCP, MCDST, ICCE

        Any advice is given in good faith and without warranty.

        Please give reputation points if somebody has helped you.

        "For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the Earth." (Exodus 9:15) - I could kill you with my thumb.

        "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you." (Genesis 9:3) - For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

          Another good reason for splitting is disaster recovery -- in the event of a disaster it may be important to get managers back on line quickly, while the plebs can wait a while.
          Tom Jones
          MCT, MCSE (2000:Security & 2003), MCSA:Security & Messaging, MCDBA, MCDST, MCITP(EA, EMA, SA, EDA, ES, CS), MCTS, MCP, Sec+
          PhD, MSc, FIAP, MIITT
          IT Trainer / Consultant
          Ossian Ltd
          Scotland

          ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points where appropriate **

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

            Spoken like a true manager why am I having a flashback to the Dilbert about the difference between those who have time and those who have talent?

            As well as DR, disaster prevention may also be a factor too - there is always the possibility that an issue may take out a mail store while leaving the others intact.

            Naturally though, don't view multiple stores as being any substitute for proper backups and a formal DR plan.
            Gareth Howells

            BSc (Hons), MBCS, MCP, MCDST, ICCE

            Any advice is given in good faith and without warranty.

            Please give reputation points if somebody has helped you.

            "For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the Earth." (Exodus 9:15) - I could kill you with my thumb.

            "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you." (Genesis 9:3) - For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

              Originally posted by Ossian View Post
              Another good reason for splitting is disaster recovery -- in the event of a disaster it may be important to get managers back on line quickly, while the plebs can wait a while.
              sorry.. but it's more important to get email working for the IT guys, so they can communicate about things.

              the managers can just wait.
              Please do show your appreciation to those who assist you by leaving Rep Point https://www.petri.com/forums/core/im.../icon_beer.gif

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

                Not wanting to take this off topic, but the priorities for recovering after a disaster will vary from company to company. This is why you need to have a formal DR plan in place. Managers are always going to complain if they don't get their email back, but the fact is that your sales staff generally do more to earn money for the company, customer accont managers need to be in contact with your customers otherwise you're dead in the water. Yes, IT staff are also important, but I'm sure they'll find other ways of communicating with each other - if necessary they can use instant messaging, their personal email accounts, or even just *talk* to each other

                Sales staff using their personal email accounts on the other hand looks unprofessional, and is not a desirable position to be in.

                Again, the priorities will depend on the company in question, but in my opinion you should prioritise those users who need to be in direct contact with members of the public. The last thing you want to have to say to a customer is "sorry, we've had a system failure so you can't email us" - it's not good for business if the customer thinks you have dodgy systems in place.

                This is a topic worthy of debate in its own right - perhaps a moderator could split the relevant posts off into a new thread?
                Last edited by gforceindustries; 8th July 2010, 14:09.
                Gareth Howells

                BSc (Hons), MBCS, MCP, MCDST, ICCE

                Any advice is given in good faith and without warranty.

                Please give reputation points if somebody has helped you.

                "For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the Earth." (Exodus 9:15) - I could kill you with my thumb.

                "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you." (Genesis 9:3) - For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

                  Obviously this is where a "dial tone" recovery comes into play and the procedures are well documented.

                  I really didnt intend to start a major debate, just to give an example of how splitting mailboxes into different databases could be useful in a DR scenario.
                  Tom Jones
                  MCT, MCSE (2000:Security & 2003), MCSA:Security & Messaging, MCDBA, MCDST, MCITP(EA, EMA, SA, EDA, ES, CS), MCTS, MCP, Sec+
                  PhD, MSc, FIAP, MIITT
                  IT Trainer / Consultant
                  Ossian Ltd
                  Scotland

                  ** Remember to give credit where credit is due and leave reputation points where appropriate **

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Exchange 2003 to 2010 transition confusion?

                    Thanks so much for the valuable insight guys!!

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X