Prev: Exchange 2010: Are the Shared Calendar Issues Resolved?
Next: syncing mail stores between 2 Exchange 2007 servers?
From: Kevin Adams on 12 Mar 2010 23:36
Greetings,

Moving mailboxes from a 2003 server to a 2007 server. Last few
mailboxes, one is 29G (129k items). I tried moving this mailbox
earlier in the week, the move went on for 11hrs+ and didnt complete in
the time i'd alotted so it cancelled. Started moving again earlier
today expecting the move to take some time. Imagine to my surprise,
that the move took only 3.5hrs.

My question, what is the "expensive" part of the mailbox move
process? Taking the scenario above into account, does it make sense
that the most costly part of the move is the extension of the
database? Based on the above, i have to think that having already
expanded the db significantly the first time, this time all that
needed to be done was copy content.

Just trying to understand.
Thanks,

K

ps. Assuming again that this is the case, anyone heard of a method
of "pre-extending" a db such that there is sufficient space ahead of
time for later mailbox moves?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Exchange 2010: Are the Shared Calendar Issues Resolved?
Next: syncing mail stores between 2 Exchange 2007 servers?