Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
You might want to try that again with a valid technote number.
Subject: Oh it is a valid number all right, its just a “Draft” technote. Was written in 2001.
This is all it says about corruption:Mailbox Reliability
We all know that the larger the databases the more likely we are to suffer from some form of data corruption, that is a universal rule, not a Notes one.
So it follows that the less (unnecessary) data we store on our Mail server, the more reliable our mailer server will be. We always want to achieve the maximum MTBF (meantime between failures) for any system.
Subject: RE: Oh it is a valid number all right, its just a “Draft” technote. Was written in 2001.
LOL. It’s a draft. It was written for the previous version. And what it says is “larger files are more prone to problems.”
Well, stop the presses! Who would have imagined that data written across more sectors of a disk would be more likely to have a failure than data written across fewer sectors!? You mean, more instances of a thing mean more opportunities for something to go wrong!?
I wonder if all these people running into “corruptions” are running on non-RAIDed IDEs?
Subject: RE: Oh it is a valid number all right, its just a “Draft” technote. Was written in 2001.
So what you’re saying is that it contains common sense rather than any sort of technical directives. Hmmm. And it hasn’t actually been published. Hmmm. So does that mean Notes is dead?
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
I didn’t work with AS/400s on R5, but I did on R6, and with hundreds of > 1GB mail databases. Never had a single corruption.
I’ve run servers with thousands of mail dbs on Linux, NT, W2K, Solaris, OS/400 and OS/2. I’ve worked with mail databases as large as 8GB. I’ve worked regularly with other Domino databases in excess of 28GB. I’ve run Domino projects at 30 different Fortune 1000 companies. My mail in NOTES VERSION 2 was 300MB.
And I can count the number of times I’ve had to restore a database from backup due to “corruption” on one hand.
Whatever experience you had, it was obviously unfortunate. But it is NOT in the nature of the software to have trouble dealing with large NSFs. Maybe you had 5.00 running on OS/400? I don’t know.
But right now I have a W2K server in the next room with 25 NSFs larger than 1GB, and 409 NSFs larger than 100MB. It’s a single CPU system with SATA drives – nothing special. It’s been running without “corruption” issues for over a year, initially on 5.0.10, and then on 6.5.2.
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
And you are saying all this based on your own experience, which as I initially said is much different from mine. It’s nice to know in a world called Perfect problems don’t exist. An official statement from Lotus of what should be expected and what is supported would be extremely helpful.
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
“An official statement from Lotus of what should be expected and what is supported would be extremely helpful.”
“The maximum database size is 64GB on Windows and UNIX.”
That’s an official statement. Database sizes up to 64GB on Windows and UNIX are supported.
I’m unable to locate any official statement from IBM regarding this 100MB business, except a 2nd hand reference about a draft technote from 4 years ago that doesn’t mention a file size AT ALL. We have a single anecdotal explanation that files in excess of 100MB experienced some problems on a brand new platform 6 YEARS AGO.
Would it not seem that the reasonable conclusion is, there is no inherent limit or threshold on mail file sizes in 6.5, except what the administrator chooses to set or what limitations exist in the OS? I certainly think so. This isn’t a question of living in a “world called Perfect.” It’s simply that IBM has stated what the limitation is, broad consensus is that > 1GB mail files are not a technical problem, and the one counter-example provided is 6 years old.
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
So, I was forwarded the “draft” tech note from tech support to support THEIR contention that mail dbs shouldn’t be over 100mb. How offical do you want it to be? I can’t find the word “draft” on it.
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
“How offical do you want it to be?”
Simple. I want to be able to obtain the technote independent of your claim to have it. You see, you can’t search for that technote number in the online knowledgebase. I think Bill only sees it because he’s a business partner.
Try it. You can’t find it.
Additionally, the technote doesn’t actually specify a size. It just says “your performance and reliability improve with smaller files.” That doesn’t say anything about a limit.
Look Craig (and Chris), I’m not trying to argue with you. What I’m saying is that some tech support guy was lazy. Wanting to clear your call, he said “just limit your mail size and the problem will go away.” Well, developerWorks is something of a major knowledge archive and communications hub, so I am fiercely trying to ensure that any other Domino administrator coming across this thread doesn’t walk away with the impression that they need to set up 100MB quotas on mail to get support from Lotus.
Subject: Not sure, but original title is:
"6 Rules for Mailboxes, Mailservers, Mail Performance, and Mail Archiving, + some Stampy philosophy"I do not know who “Stampy” is and why he is making recommendations (and these are recommendations, not laws) here. I do know that the disclaimer for Draft technotes is:
Draft Information - Subject to change.
DRAFT DOCUMENTS ARE NOT COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, AND HAVE NOT UNDERGONE THE QUALITY ASSURANCE TESTING LOTUS PERFORMS ON THE VERSION OF KNOWLEDGE BASE WHICH LOTUS MAKES AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. CUSTOMER SHOULD ALLOW ACCESS TO DRAFT DOCUMENTS ONLY TO KNOWLEDGEABLE AND TRAINED INDIVIDUALS. IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, CUSTOMER IS REQUIRED TO BACKUP ALL DATA AND PROGRAMS PRIOR TO USING THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS. LOTUS WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT OR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT TO ITS USE OF THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS. THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND LOTUS MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, MCERHANTIABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. LOTUS WILL NOT HAVE ANY, AND CUSTOMER ACCEPTS ALL, LIABILITY FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, TORT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH CUSTOMER’S USE OF THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS OR ANY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES OR COSTS INCURRED AS A RESULT OF LOST PROFITS OR REVENUE, LOSS OF USE OF THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS, LOSS OF DATA , THE COST OF RECOVERING THE DRAFT DOCUMENTS OR DATA, THE COST OF SUBSTITUTES OR CLAIMS BY THIRD PARTIES.
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
I think it’s rather funny to hold up the Domino help as the ultimate authority considering how much it leaves out. I could list out some of the flaws I have found in it, but I don’t want this to degenerate any further. Thank you for your time and input, I truly appreciate it.
Subject: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
We have 150MB quotas across the board, no exceptions, 234 total mail files. Most people are between 60% and 80% of their quota, but they are also using it a lot for personal correspondence so I’m not very sympathetic. Why should the company buy disk space for pictures of people’s dogs, and why should I be expected to support multi-gig databases when they are not being used for business purposes?
Subject: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
Avg = 600MBMax = 3.5GB
No mailbox quotas.
Users with > 2GB get a friendly “how to archive” message every 6 months. That’s only because backup-tapes are expensive, otherwise we really don’t care.
100MB limit? yeesh
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
I don’t want to say I don’t care but the fact is we ARE user driven. If they want a big mail file that will cost a lot to support, may break and will house all the evidence then so be it. Yahoo and Google touting 2 gig mail files will probably set some of our standards as well.
On average I see 200-500 meg email files.
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
Thanks Doug!
Subject: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
Craig - when R5 was released, Lotus (!) at the time did make a statement, that they would guarantee DB sizes of up to 64GB. I take it, that a Mailbox is a “normal” Notes database.
Does it make sense, to have a mailbox that size - that’s another question and my response would be “it depends, but most likely not” 
Remember also, that at the time, a standard hard drive in a notebook was between 1-4GB.
To answer your question: depending on archiving intervals, my sloppyness (and the fulltext index), my own mail file is between 400MB and 1,2GB. Never ever had a problem with any size.
Stefan
Subject: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
The biggest mail box I ever saw was 49GB, it was became that big because of the user setting up mail fowarding agent that loops. It was functional even atg this size. On regular basis have a lot of people i 1GB-5Gb range
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
Thanks for the info Alex!
Subject: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
Hi Craig,
From where in Lotus have you heard that. In an official statement (public technote) or was it more in a small chat.
I have never heard about this small size (100mb) and am very supprised.
The max I am seeing is 2 gb.
//Kjeld
Subject: RE: Just how big are YOUR mailboxes?
Hi Kjeld,
I got it from a tech note forwarded to me by lotus support (tech note 7003251)as backup for their comments that my mailboxes are too big.
If you read the technote, you’ll find a part where it says corruption is normal and for bigger dbs, more common. I hope my managment doesn’t read this as they might want to reflect on their choice of dbms.
Thanks for your post!