| Author |
Books for Exchange 2000
|
|
| ruscorp 2003-09-19, 10:16 pm |
| Can anyone recommand anything?
I'm starting to play running with Exchange. | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-20, 1:13 pm |
| Congrats!
I can not recommend ExamPrep.
Sybex reads a little soft for objectives.
Maybe MOC.
I also recommend the MOC for Exchange 5.5, if you are going to take the exam. You should have a good working unerstanding of 5.5 and upgrading to 2000. 5.5 and 2000 are two different animals, so it is good to work with both.
Take your time. Best of luck! | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-20, 1:36 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
Congrats!
I can not recommend ExamPrep.
Sybex reads a little soft for objectives.
Maybe MOC.
I also recommend the MOC for Exchange 5.5, if you are going to take the exam. You should have a good working unerstanding of 5.5 and upgrading to 2000. 5.5 and 2000 are two different animals, so it is good to work with both.
Take your time. Best of luck!
Actaully I have a course prep book from school for 5.5. What do you think? | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-20, 5:52 pm |
| It will be a good start. I liked the MOC for 5.5 because it came with the software too. | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-20, 7:37 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
It will be a good start. I liked the MOC for 5.5 because it came with the software too.
I work with Exchange 5.5 however barely understand it.
However I want to migrate my NT 4 server to 2000 AD. The problem is though I have SBS 4.5 so I am unable to connect to the 5.5 server to attempt to migrate accounts.
As you might know with SBS everything has to be in one machine. There is no direct upgrade path [except to buy SBS 2000 and I want to do away with SBS].
This setup doesn't work out because I want 2 DC's and SBS doesn't allow that. Just basically for fault tolerance, if one server goes down it doesn't take auth with it. | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-20, 8:19 pm |
| Yeah that's a tough upgrade path. But you got 5.5 experience that's good. | |
| Deja-vue 2003-09-20, 9:02 pm |
| I highly recommend the Resourcekit for Exchange 2000. That Book is a Monster of about 1000+ Pages.
Call me ( you got my Number), if you need Details.
 | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-20, 9:03 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
Yeah that's a tough upgrade path. But you got 5.5 experience that's good.
Upgrade? There is no upgrade path. Everything has to be scraped and rebuilt from the bottom up and I am unsure as to how to do this (plus the fact I'm not certified to do it either).
The network needs an upgrade, however this administrator doesn't know how. Yep I'm willing to admit I'm clueless.
I'm just book smart with 2000 and AD. I work with NT however wasn't able to take any NT exams because they expired before I was out of school.
I made a mock 2000 domain for testing/learning and installed Exchange 2000 thinking maybe I could some how move their Outlook settings over to 2000 however it looks like people will lose their stuff if I do so unless I backup all 10 users PSTs. The master calendar in the public folder is also another worry. Everyone lives off of that with day-to-day operations. How do I move that?
---Signed clueless in NYC | |
|
| why don't you do the exam for the 2003 instead of doing it for 2000 | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-20, 9:27 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by SVR1
why don't you do the exam for the 2003 instead of doing it for 2000
How many businesses use Windows Server 2003? Not many. Most are starting to jump on the 2000 AD wagon. | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-20, 11:16 pm |
| I think if you were going to upgrade that situation to 2k, just note all the current settings, export all the mailboxes to PSTs. | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-20, 11:33 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
I think if you were going to upgrade that situation to 2k, just note all the current settings, export all the mailboxes to PSTs.
I figured. I tell people to clean out their boxes and keep them small because of that. So what do i see. Mr. X has 4,542 e-mails (2,394 unread).
Nice right?  | |
| isles1 2003-09-21, 11:35 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
I figured. I tell people to clean out their boxes and keep them small because of that. So what do i see. Mr. X has 4,542 e-mails (2,394 unread).
Nice right?
That's nothing. We have a guy around where I work that has upwards of 20,000 messages (that's just the Inbox, combo of both read and unread).
He is a total packrat and is afraid to delete anything because he may need it one day.
He constantly complains that Outlook runs slow, but will not listen to the tips to delete a lot of messages, and archive some as well. Scary stuff considering this guy's professional positions  | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-21, 12:11 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by isles1
That's nothing. We have a guy around where I work that has upwards of 20,000 messages (that's just the Inbox, combo of both read and unread).
He is a total packrat and is afraid to delete anything because he may need it one day.
He constantly complains that Outlook runs slow, but will not listen to the tips to delete a lot of messages, and archive some as well. Scary stuff considering this guy's professional positions
I tell him the same stuff. Delete some useless email and Outlook will run faster however he refuses. | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-21, 1:27 pm |
| Our staff of consultants:
a) Carry large backlogs of email with attachments.
b) Are limited to 40-something megs for the Exchange Inbox.
c) Archive their inbox to a personal share on a file server.
I have taken to:
a) Warning them when they approach 1 Gig for their archive folder. Everything I have read say that PST files are very likely to corrupt at this mark.
b) Encourage them to break it up by year or project, into new PST.
c) Record the PST to CD-Rom by year or project for their use. They will have to copy it to their workstation and insure that it is not read-only to open it.
d) Make a copy for the company archives. (Consider the legal ramifications of this first!) | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-21, 1:47 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
Our staff of consultants:
a) Carry large backlogs of email with attachments.
b) Are limited to 40-something megs for the Exchange Inbox.
c) Archive their inbox to a personal share on a file server.
I have taken to:
a) Warning them when they approach 1 Gig for their archive folder. Everything I have read say that PST files are very likely to corrupt at this mark.
b) Encourage them to break it up by year or project, into new PST.
c) Record the PST to CD-Rom by year or project for their use. They will have to copy it to their workstation and insure that it is not read-only to open it.
d) Make a copy for the company archives. (Consider the legal ramifications of this first!)
There's an option in 5.5 to limit mailboxs? Where is it? | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-21, 4:05 pm |
| Yeah, they get warnings sent automatically, additional limits can be set to what size their box is before they cannot send mail; and additional limit for when they can no longer receive mail.
Limits page of the mailbox properties. | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-21, 6:02 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
Yeah, they get warnings sent automatically, additional limits can be set to what size their box is before they cannot send mail; and additional limit for when they can no longer receive mail.
Limits page of the mailbox properties.
This is shows I how lack knowledge of Exchange.
Here's a pic of my admin Exchange 5.5 console. I think I have found it. What exactly should I input? Names have been changed to protect the identity of the user. All users are morons until proven tech-savvy on ExamNotes.
http://ruscorpx.org/test/jeffjblack01.jpg | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-21, 9:11 pm |
| Yeah, the lower left dialogue box has the three settings I mentioned. There must also be settings for this on the store level, that would effect all users with mailboxes in that store. I love Exchange! | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-21, 9:50 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
Yeah, the lower left dialogue box has the three settings I mentioned. There must also be settings for this on the store level, that would effect all users with mailboxes in that store. I love Exchange!
What do you think is a good limit? I put 5MB as a warning. Monday I will send out an e-Mail offically large mailboxes. | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-21, 9:51 pm |
| Oops, forgot to attach. | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-21, 11:46 pm |
| Depends on your business and your current situation. If they have a lot of attachments you could be up for a long swim at 5MB. I would definitely do some education on your biggest issue users after getting some support from the business powers that be. | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-22, 11:47 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
Depends on your business and your current situation. If they have a lot of attachments you could be up for a long swim at 5MB. I would definitely do some education on your biggest issue users after getting some support from the business powers that be.
I just so sick of people ignoring my requests to clean out mailboxes I'm at the point where I'm ready to start enforcing what words. They have no idea what their 100MB mailbox does do the server's response time. Then to top it off have the nerve to complain when it's slow or that box that says "Microsoft Outlook is retrieving information for the Exchange server..." | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-22, 12:14 pm |
| Email, especially the accumulation of it is really becoming an issue to be dealt with, that I don't think was really anticipated when it started out. The space, the legal issues, user support, etc. Almost makes you wish to return to postal service or go postal at least! | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-22, 12:48 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
Email, especially the accumulation of it is really becoming an issue to be dealt with, that I don't think was really anticipated when it started out. The space, the legal issues, user support, etc. Almost makes you wish to return to postal service or go postal at least!
Should I be alarmed at these totals?
http://ruscorpx.org/test/mailboxes.jpg | |
| theprofessor 2003-09-22, 2:03 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ruscorp
Can anyone recommand anything?
I'm starting to play running with Exchange.
Back to your original request. I highly recommend the Exchange Server 2000 Administrator's Pocket Consultant from Microsoft Press, ISBN 0-7356-0962-4
I teach Exchange 2000 (using the MOC) and I have not found another book on Exchange 2000 that has such clear explanations. To make things even better, it's small and it's cheap - $18.20 from ProVantage
http://www.provantage.com/buy-22046...nt-shopping.htm | |
| isles1 2003-09-22, 2:30 pm |
| On a related note, if you are interested in having some info on Exchange 2003, the Admin. Pocket Consultant is great as well.
Picked it up at overstock.com for about $17:
ISBN - 0735619786
quote:
Originally posted by theprofessor
Back to your original request. I highly recommend the Exchange Server 2000 Administrator's Pocket Consultant from Microsoft Press, ISBN 0-7356-0962-4
I teach Exchange 2000 (using the MOC) and I have not found another book on Exchange 2000 that has such clear explanations. To make things even better, it's small and it's cheap - $18.20 from ProVantage
http://www.provantage.com/buy-22046...nt-shopping.htm
| |
| ruscorp 2003-09-22, 2:52 pm |
| Thanks theprofessor & isles1! | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-23, 9:24 am |
| quote:
Should I be alarmed at these totals?
Well, you got three people who just need a little coaxing or educating. Those are between 150 meg to 300+ meg. If that's all you have in terms of users, you should not have to worry about the potential 16 gig limit (depending on version) for your storage group.
But when they complain of slow response, let them know that when they open Outlook, they essentially have to download their entire inbox. This way you can be the good guy and show them how to speed things up and 'protect' their 'precious data'.
Get them to set up a PST local to their machine, move the older stuff in there, offer to burn a CD of it for archival purposes. My users are lucky enough to be able to store their archive PST in a user share that gets backed up to tape, but we're beginning to try to ease them away from that as it just postpones the problem. Again, everything I've read says that PST are especially prone to corruption at a gig in size. So I use that as the bait to get them to let me put their old stuff on CD. | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-23, 11:37 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
Well, you got three people who just need a little coaxing or educating. Those are between 150 meg to 300+ meg. If that's all you have in terms of users, you should not have to worry about the potential 16 gig limit (depending on version) for your storage group.
But when they complain of slow response, let them know that when they open Outlook, they essentially have to download their entire inbox. This way you can be the good guy and show them how to speed things up and 'protect' their 'precious data'.
Get them to set up a PST local to their machine, move the older stuff in there, offer to burn a CD of it for archival purposes. My users are lucky enough to be able to store their archive PST in a user share that gets backed up to tape, but we're beginning to try to ease them away from that as it just postpones the problem. Again, everything I've read says that PST are especially prone to corruption at a gig in size. So I use that as the bait to get them to let me put their old stuff on CD.
Sounds like a plan. However I think some users need a little more than coaxing or educating. I think they need their arses kicked by the IT guy for giving me a headache. | |
| jeff_j_black 2003-09-23, 9:02 pm |
| One mans coaxing is another mans XXX kicking... | |
| ruscorp 2003-09-23, 10:09 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by jeff_j_black
One mans coaxing is another mans XXX kicking...
After banning the sending/receiving of e-mail after 50MBs (enemy no. 1), I got a response from the worst offender. He deleted 15MBs of mail. It's a start.
My campaign against email space offenders will continue. It seems that didn't scare public enemies no. 2 and 3 though. I will employ more aggressive tactics on them.
 |
|
|
|