microsoft.public.exchange2000.admin - Hosting multiple companies on Exchange 2000. Calling all Exchange 2000 guru's...

Author

Hosting multiple companies on Exchange 2000. Calling all Exchange 2000 guru's...

I_UA Support

2002-08-12, 3:23 am

I tried setting up an Exchange 2000 server to host email for a number of
small companies.
Ran into some trouble creating multiple storage groups and mailbox stores...
and had problems creating public folder virtual roots ... Here are the
details, any help would be appreciated.

1) Partitioned Active directory ok
2) Created User Principle Name suffixes ok
3) Setup Multiple Storage groups for different client SLA's... ok* on first
run
4) Created Mailbox stores for the companies.ok
5) Populated the OU's ok
6) Added groups for users and admins ok
7) Applied directory security ok
8) Setup address lists ok
9) Set msExchQueryBaseDN ok
10) Delegated admin authority ok
11) Created recipient policies for users and groups ok
12) Tried to create Public folders with virtual roots... foobar

Initially I setup 2 different Mailbox Stores with 4 company mailbox stores
under each one to make sure all would work. Although I had problems creating
public folders with virtual roots I ran some tests and all worked ok. I was
able to send (SMTP) and retrieve (POP3) mail from all 8 companies domains.

At his point I thought I would pump in a bunch more companies and deal with
the Public folders issue when I was done. First, I got an error code after I
tried to create more than 4 Storage groups and got the same error if I tried
to add more than 5 Mailbox Stores to each Storage Group Got error... ID no:
c1034a7a Exchange System Manager.

Tracked down the error code and it said " 5.18 Q: Why when I try to add an
additional mailbox store do I receive the following error? This storage
group already contains the maximum number of stores allowed. ID no: c1034a7a

A. You are running the standard version of Exchange 2000 which is limited to
a single 16GB private information store.

Then I did some more hunting and found....

The difference in capability between Exchange 2000 Server and Exchange 2000
Enterprise Server. The standard Exchange 2000 Server is limited to a
database size of 16 GB and a single mailbox store, whereas Exchange 2000
Enterprise Server's database size has no limit, and multiple mailbox stores
are supported.

This is great so I looked at what version of Microsoft Exchange server I had
(rubbed my bloodshot eyes in disbelief after working on it for 20 hours, at
this point most of my brain cells are dead ) Sure enough the box says
Microsoft Exchange 2000 Enterprise server. Rubbed my eyes once again in
disbelief... If I have a problem that is only supposed to happen with the
regular Exchange 200o server. Why do you think I'm having the same problem
with Exchange 2000 Enterprise server which is supposed to support
"unlimited" database size and support multiple mailbox stores. i.e. Why is
Exchange 2000 Enterprise version giving me this error code ? Is the
information I found above correct? And if so any idea on how to proceed?

I had applied Exchange 2000 Service Pack 2 to the server previously, could
this problem require SP3? Do I need to have more than 512 MB of RAM on the
machine?

As far as creating public folder virtual roots goes it gave me an error (I
forgot to write the error code down, doh!) in any event it wouldn't let me
create any additional public folders? Any ideas here?

Sorry if this is difficult to read, I really need to get some sleep .

Thanks in advance
Bot Brain

Rich Matheisen [MVP]

2002-08-12, 9:23 pm

"I_UA Support" <i_ua_support@sympatico.ca> wrote:

[ snip ]

> At his point I thought I would pump in a bunch more companies and deal with
>the Public folders issue when I was done. First, I got an error code after I
>tried to create more than 4 Storage groups and got the same error if I tried
>to add more than 5 Mailbox Stores to each Storage Group Got error... ID no:
>c1034a7a Exchange System Manager.
>
>Tracked down the error code and it said " 5.18 Q: Why when I try to add an
>additional mailbox store do I receive the following error? This storage
>group already contains the maximum number of stores allowed. ID no: c1034a7a
>
>A. You are running the standard version of Exchange 2000 which is limited to
>a single 16GB private information store.
>
>Then I did some more hunting and found....

Well, it's simply that the limits placed on E2K Enterprise, running in
a 32-bit memory model, are:

4 storage groups (5, actually -- one's reserved for restores)
5 mailbox stores per storage group

Theoretically, there's a 16 storage group limit. That would leave 15
for your use and one to be used by the system to restore databases
from backups. I forget the actual upper-bound on the number of mailbox
stores per SG, but it's probably 16 or 32.

[ snip ]

>I had applied Exchange 2000 Service Pack 2 to the server previously, could
>this problem require SP3? Do I need to have more than 512 MB of RAM on the
>machine?

With that many Storage Groups? Oh, yeah!

--
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm

I_UA Support

2002-08-14, 8:23 am

Thanks very much for your help Rich...

It's not the answer I wanted but at least I know where the wall is now... I
really don't know how to explain this to the client, they will never go for
purchasing another 5-6 servers plus all of the software. It's simple
economics... They cannot charge-back (in this current environment) enough
money to their customers to make it economically feasible.

A couple of further questions...

How would you recommend to host email for 80+ companies on Exchange 2000
Enterprise server? As I understood this was what ASP's would want to use
according to Microsoft marketing and propaganda dept?

Well, here we are...

It seems to me that this E2K is not a good solution at all for ASP's... And
that it was created to handle corporate hosting with few companies and many
users per company. Email hosting is a simple, if not trivial matter there is
nothing complex about it, or the protocols employed.

Even the crappy little Gordano NT Mail they are upgrading from can run (is
currently running) 80+ companies, and it costs about $7000.00 less per copy?
If I do the math it's going to cost them another $45,000USD + hardware (at
least). This is not a very cost effective situation, the only company that
will make money out of this deal will be Microsoft :-(

Am I missing something here?

What would be the E2K limitations if we ran E2K on a 64-bit server, and I
gather that would require a different version of O/S and E2K?

Have a good day

Bot Brain

P.S: Anyone want to buy a slightly used copy of E2K?

"I_UA Support" <i_ua_support@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ehZfHldQCHA.2652@tkmsftngp10...
> I tried setting up an Exchange 2000 server to host email for a number of
> small companies.
> Ran into some trouble creating multiple storage groups and mailbox
stores...
> and had problems creating public folder virtual roots ... Here are the
> details, any help would be appreciated.
>
>
> 1) Partitioned Active directory ok
> 2) Created User Principle Name suffixes ok
> 3) Setup Multiple Storage groups for different client SLA's... ok* on
first
> run
> 4) Created Mailbox stores for the companies.ok
> 5) Populated the OU's ok
> 6) Added groups for users and admins ok
> 7) Applied directory security ok
> 8) Setup address lists ok
> 9) Set msExchQueryBaseDN ok
> 10) Delegated admin authority ok
> 11) Created recipient policies for users and groups ok
> 12) Tried to create Public folders with virtual roots... foobar
>
> Initially I setup 2 different Mailbox Stores with 4 company mailbox stores
> under each one to make sure all would work. Although I had problems
creating
> public folders with virtual roots I ran some tests and all worked ok. I
was
> able to send (SMTP) and retrieve (POP3) mail from all 8 companies domains.
>
> At his point I thought I would pump in a bunch more companies and deal
with
> the Public folders issue when I was done. First, I got an error code after
I
> tried to create more than 4 Storage groups and got the same error if I
tried
> to add more than 5 Mailbox Stores to each Storage Group Got error... ID
no:
> c1034a7a Exchange System Manager.
>
> Tracked down the error code and it said " 5.18 Q: Why when I try to add an
> additional mailbox store do I receive the following error? This storage
> group already contains the maximum number of stores allowed. ID no:
c1034a7a
>
> A. You are running the standard version of Exchange 2000 which is limited
to
> a single 16GB private information store.
>
> Then I did some more hunting and found....
>
> The difference in capability between Exchange 2000 Server and Exchange
2000
> Enterprise Server. The standard Exchange 2000 Server is limited to a
> database size of 16 GB and a single mailbox store, whereas Exchange 2000
> Enterprise Server's database size has no limit, and multiple mailbox
stores
> are supported.
>
> This is great so I looked at what version of Microsoft Exchange server I
had
> (rubbed my bloodshot eyes in disbelief after working on it for 20 hours,
at
> this point most of my brain cells are dead ) Sure enough the box says
> Microsoft Exchange 2000 Enterprise server. Rubbed my eyes once again in
> disbelief... If I have a problem that is only supposed to happen with the
> regular Exchange 200o server. Why do you think I'm having the same problem
> with Exchange 2000 Enterprise server which is supposed to support
> "unlimited" database size and support multiple mailbox stores. i.e. Why is
> Exchange 2000 Enterprise version giving me this error code ? Is the
> information I found above correct? And if so any idea on how to proceed?
>
> I had applied Exchange 2000 Service Pack 2 to the server previously, could
> this problem require SP3? Do I need to have more than 512 MB of RAM on the
> machine?
>
> As far as creating public folder virtual roots goes it gave me an error (I
> forgot to write the error code down, doh!) in any event it wouldn't let me
> create any additional public folders? Any ideas here?
>
>
> Sorry if this is difficult to read, I really need to get some sleep .
>
>
> Thanks in advance
> Bot Brain
>
>
>

Rich Matheisen [MVP]

2002-08-14, 8:23 pm

"I_UA Support" <i_ua_support@sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Thanks very much for your help Rich...
>
>It's not the answer I wanted but at least I know where the wall is now... I
>really don't know how to explain this to the client, they will never go for
>purchasing another 5-6 servers plus all of the software. It's simple
>economics... They cannot charge-back (in this current environment) enough
>money to their customers to make it economically feasible.

Why is it necessary to use a separate storage group for each company?
Why is is necessary to even use a separate database for each company?
(I know there are legitimate answers to each of these, but I'm curious
to hear what yours [or theirs] are).

>A couple of further questions...
>
>How would you recommend to host email for 80+ companies on Exchange 2000
>Enterprise server? As I understood this was what ASP's would want to use
>according to Microsoft marketing and propaganda dept?

That would depend on the requirements of the companies.

What most ASP's offer doesn't take advantage of what Exchange offers.
I've seen 5.5 and E2K used as POP3/IMAP4 servers, and that's just
wasting money. There are less expensive solutions if that's all that's
offered.

>Well, here we are...
>
>It seems to me that this E2K is not a good solution at all for ASP's...

It depends on how you define an ASP. ASP <> ISP. And one server, or
one Storge Group (or one database) per customer may not be the best
solution, either.

>And
>that it was created to handle corporate hosting with few companies and many
>users per company.

That's correct. If anyone from MS would care to offer contradictory
opinions, I'm listening.

>Email hosting is a simple, if not trivial matter there is
>nothing complex about it, or the protocols employed.

If you mean SMTP/POP3/IMAP4, you're absolutely correct. If that's what
they're selling then they probably are an ISP and not an ASP (at least
the way I'd define them).

>Even the crappy little Gordano NT Mail they are upgrading from can run (is
>currently running) 80+ companies, and it costs about $7000.00 less per copy?
>If I do the math it's going to cost them another $45,000USD + hardware (at
>least). This is not a very cost effective situation, the only company that
>will make money out of this deal will be Microsoft :-(
>
>Am I missing something here?

Maybe. But I don't know what their business model is, either.

>What would be the E2K limitations if we ran E2K on a 64-bit server, and I
>gather that would require a different version of O/S and E2K?

15 Storage groups. I forget if there would be 15, 32, or 64 databases
per SG. Sorry.

A differnt version of the OS? Sorta. It's still W2K, though. And
there's no 64-bit version of Exchange available today. And, with the
way most manufactures are treating 64-bit Intel CPU's it'll be a few
yers before we see either.

--
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP
MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm

Sponsored Links