Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.
798 views

Changing from retention baased to quota based

Hello All,
Management wants to convert from a 90 day retention policy to a 10GB/user quote based retention policy.

Eventually I'm trying to figure out the how many GB a post office can handle before experiencing performance issue. Somewhere I read that users should be moved to another POA when the POA size reaches 150GB...

Has anyone seen some sort of calculator for this scenerio?

If you are running a quota based system, how are you configured?
Recommendations?
Partition type used for storage?

thanks
Brad
Labels (2)
0 Likes
3 Replies
Highlighted
Knowledge Partner
Knowledge Partner

Re: Changing from retention baased to quota based

In article <bbecken.683v7d@no-mx.forums.novell.com>, Bbecken wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out the how many GB a post office can
> handle before experiencing performance issue.


I have a customer with an up to 750GB PostOffice with automated purging
of older mail (currently at 800 days) that includes one user with a
100GB mailbox that have no performance problems from the server, just
the occasional indexing getting in the way on the caching mail boxes.
They have to retain all mail, so GWAVA's Retain also makes sure we keep
everything.
I've heard of bigger.

It isn't the size, it is the number of messages that is a bigger
determiner.

The bigger / more messages there are in a PO, the more CPU and memory
resources are needed. I haven't seen any such calculators for some
time, so I don't have an easy answer, just bits of suggestions.

NSS / EXT3 are the two best options with plenty of fans on either side
of those two. Both have issues to deal with, but both give good
performance when they are set up correctly. If you are running OES
anyways, NSS gives you some easy of management options.

I haven't done a whole lot with quotas, but have hit the space
management from the other side of trying to keep things under control
other ways. I've distilled my experiences here
http://www.konecnyad.ca/andyk/gwbig.htm that may help you to help your
users work within the 10GB limits.


Andy of
KonecnyConsulting.ca in Toronto
Knowledge Partner
http://forums.novell.com/member.php/75037-konecnya
If you find a post helpful and are logged in the Web interface, please
show your appreciation by clicking on the star below. Thanks!

___
“i’ve sworn an oath of solitude til the blight is purged from these lands”
Andy of Konecny Consulting in Toronto
Knowledge Partner Profile
If you find a post helpful, click the Like button below. Thanks!
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Changing from retention baased to quota based

Brad,

in addition to what andy said, keep in mind that the number of users x 10GB doesn't equal the size of the PO, due to the way Groupwise handles messages. If the users share a lot of messages, these exist only once in the database, but they count for each user's mailbox quota.

Another potential problem is the speed of backup/restore.

Uwe

--
Novell Knowledge Associate
Please don't send me support related e-mail unless I ask you to do so.
0 Likes
Highlighted
Absent Member.
Absent Member.

Re: Changing from retention baased to quota based

On 1/19/2014 3:35 AM, Uwe Buckesfeld wrote:
> Brad,
>
> in addition to what andy said, keep in mind that the number of users x 10GB doesn't equal the size of the PO, due to the way Groupwise handles messages. If the users share a lot of messages, these exist only once in the database, but they count for each user's mailbox quota.
>
> Another potential problem is the speed of backup/restore.
>
> Uwe
>

and maintainance time too.

But yes, the point is it's not the size that generally matters, it's the
number of messages.

100m small messages are about as bad as 100m large messages. True,
you'll need some more disk space on your server, but that's not a biggie.
0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.