|
Home > Archive > microsoft.public.exchange2000.admin > December 2002 > Large priv1.stm file even after eseutil run HELP!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Large priv1.stm file even after eseutil run HELP!
|
|
| Michael Smith 2002-12-19, 8:23 am |
| We have an Exchange 2000 Server that has reached it's
16gig limitation 3 times now, and each time we go back to
the users and archive and delete mail in order to get
them back under. In an ideal world we would have mailbox
limitation's set so that this could not happen, but we do
not currently have any such policies in place. My
question is this: We got the priv1.edb file down to
about 3 gigs, but the priv1.stm file is still around
12gigs. In all of our other Exchange 2000 Servers,
this .stm files are always smaller than the .edb files.
Can anyone venture a guess as to why our .stm file may be
so large? And why an eseutil /d did not defragment as
much as we wanted it to? (eseutil /d was run yesterday
on system, and files are in default locations, and it did
say it defragged both priv1.edb and priv1.stm. Can
someone please help?
| |
|
| I think that the .stm is used when you use OWA and the .edb is used when the
clients access it via MAPI.
But like i wrote "I only think this is the problem".
"Michael Smith" <wmsmith76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:082a01c2a761$deb782b0$d2f
82ecf@TK2MSFTNGXA09...
> We have an Exchange 2000 Server that has reached it's
> 16gig limitation 3 times now, and each time we go back to
> the users and archive and delete mail in order to get
> them back under. In an ideal world we would have mailbox
> limitation's set so that this could not happen, but we do
> not currently have any such policies in place. My
> question is this: We got the priv1.edb file down to
> about 3 gigs, but the priv1.stm file is still around
> 12gigs. In all of our other Exchange 2000 Servers,
> this .stm files are always smaller than the .edb files.
> Can anyone venture a guess as to why our .stm file may be
> so large? And why an eseutil /d did not defragment as
> much as we wanted it to? (eseutil /d was run yesterday
> on system, and files are in default locations, and it did
> say it defragged both priv1.edb and priv1.stm. Can
> someone please help?
|
|
|
|
|