Archive Mailbox is one of the many welcoming features in Exchange 2010 Server. This feature solves issues related to PST files which gives headache for any exchange admins.
Let me explain how archive mailbox feature will address the existing problems.
- There is no company which doesn’t have staff using PST files. Archive mailbox gets rid of PST files by giving the user an additional mailbox.
- PST files are local to the user’s machine, gets corrupted easily and is hard to include the files in backup. Archive mailbox sits in the same mailbox database as the user’s main mailbox and can be included in the backup easily.
- Archive Mailbox is available in Outlook as well as Outlook Web App (OWA), which is a huge improvement. Users can access their email archive irrespective of where they are.
- Archive Mailbox is included as part of the Exchange Enterprise CALs and hence no extra cost is required (for those who have ECALs).
- Retention policies can be set for emails/folders in the archive mailbox.
- User has the option to search for emails in archive only or both primary & archive mailbox.
- Archive Quota can be set separate to the primary mailbox.
- Emails in existing PSTs can be dragged into the archive mailbox very easily.
- Users get Conversation View scoped to archive mailbox as well.
- The archive and primary mailbox share the same user account.
- Only one archive mailbox can be configured for a user.
- Archive mailbox gets created on the same mailbox database as the primary one, which is a drawback. Future service packs might bring the option to create the archive mailbox in a different database.
- The default quota warning for the archive mailbox is 10GB, which can be changed.
- All in all, it is good news for admins as they don’t have to worry about issues like a lost laptop with PST files in it, corrupted PSTs etc.
How To Configure Archive Mailbox?
Configuring an archive mailbox is very easy. You can configure an archive mailbox while the user account is created. Just check the box in the wizard!
To configure archive mailbox for an existing user, launch EMC & navigate to Recipient Configuration, right click the user and select “Enable Archive”.
A windows prompt reminds that an enterprise CAL is necessary. Click OK and an archive mailbox is configured for the user.
Note that the icon denoting a user with archive mailbox is different to the normal users.
Select the properties of the user and navigate to the “Mailbox Features” tab. You can see that the archive mailbox feature is enabled and selecting the properties brings up a box to give a name for the archive mailbox. The default name is “Online Archive – Username”. You can give a different name if you want to.
In order to change the default quota warning, navigate to “Mailbox Settings” tab, select Archive Quota –> Properties.
Launch Outlook 2010 and you will see that the archive mailbox is displayed. You can create new folders, move emails, set retention policies etc.
Launching Outlook Web App (OWA) gives the same look and feel & your archive mailbox is available for sure!
49 comments:
Rajith... Again a great article..
"Archive mailbox gets created on the same mailbox database as the primary one, which is a drawback. Future service packs might bring the option to create the archive mailbox in a different database"
I am disappointed by this feature since I was hopping it will allow to do it in other database which was the sole purpose of the feature to be able to restore them at different time and manage database growth differently then primary mailbox.
I don't think this feature, as it stand, solving any storage problem with database and don't see these to be replacement of PST files since Admin won't like to be move the problem to other mailbox in same database.
I guess there must be a technical reason for this not availble since it added both the mailboxes to same user object in AD and I guess there are not enough atribute defined to handle them on seperate mailboxes.
I would like microsoft to improve this feature with even cabability to host archive mailbox on different database and different server if needed, that would make Exch 2010 stand out to Enterprise vault and other similar archiving products.
Deepak,
I do agree that the archiving feature in 2010 RC is not for enterprises. It is aimed for small to medium businesses. You definitely need a third party software if you are a large enterprise.
But, I disagree with you regarding your statement that archive doesn't solve issues with PST. With archive mailboxes, you don't have the headache of managing issues like corrupt PST files and thereby loss of emails, backing up PSTs, lost laptop with PST files in it etc. With archive mailbox, a user can access his archive mailbox wherever he is, using OWA and Outlook which is a great improvement compared with PST access.
The explanation Microsoft has for having the archive mailbox in the same database is that, with DAG you don't really need to have a RAID solution, thereby reducing the hardware cost for storage. Hence, it doesn't really matter where the mailbox is. But, I would like to have the option to select the archive mailbox database. Maybe SP1 will bring it to the table.
Rajith,
Main reason for creating PST files was to manage the growth of databases and to reduce mailbox and database size if archive mailbox have to be on the same database store, I don't see it helping in teams of managing the database size, you might itself keep the messages on primary database and don't put in PST files, it is effectivily shifting the problem to other mailbox in same databases..
I can see it may be useful to some customer but for most it is like another feature which may not have too much use, I will certainly not recommand as archiving solution unless the database size is preplaned with enough room to keep both primary and archive mailbox in database so database size never reach 200GB or so, which does reduces the number of mailbox it can host, it have seen archives in EV reaching 10-15 GB.
I do agree partially Deepak.
But, good thing is that you can have massive archive mailbox (>10Gb) & can even change the backup schedule to back it up only once in a month or so. Having a very large mailbox as a primary one will reflect in performance whereas with an archive mailbox, you will only use it once in a while & have the peace of mind that all your mails are available anytime from anywhere!
Intresting point about backup schedule but not sure if many people would like to do a mailbox level backup these days when you could take a database level backup and restore to individual mails and if you are doing so, archive mailbox in the same database does not solve any problem.
Yes for small Environment it does add some value.
Ugh. What is the POINT of creating the archive in the same database!? Why not just load all the archived mails back into the users mailbox?
Thanks for nothing, Exchange 2010!
/Dusts off his copy of Exchange 2003.
Though it is in the same database, you can have the archive available in Outlook & OWA, which is an improvement. Different quota settings can be applied for archives as well.
I agree that MS has to give an option as to where the archive mailbox has to be created, so that we can have a dedicated database for archives which runs on cheaper hard disks.
Dumb question, but.... Are local archives (PSTs) still supported?
As far as I am aware, you can still use PST files. If you don't want to, you could probably prevent users from using it by using GPO.
I agree with the posts on what is the point if it has to stay in the same database as the main mailbox. Instead of giving them 2 mailboxes, with two seperate quotas, just increase the quota on the main mailbox and let them keep all their messages in the main mailbox. The whole point of PSTs in the past was the save space on the storage that Ecxhange is using. This doesn't solve this problem at all. I don't even see that as a benefit for small businesses for the exact same reason. They have LESS money for storage than larger companies. How is this USEFUL at all! Sure it lets you access your PST files through OWA, but you mine as well just keep your e-mails in your main inbox.
So would it be fair to say that if you have an archive mailbox set up for a user, as opposed to just giving them a huge primary mailbox, that they would see a performance increase when working in their primary mailbox? Or does it not really matter how big the primary one is if it's all the same database on the same disks?
Ben, One of the main aim of archive mailbox is to get rid of the PSTs which are hard to manage. With archive mailbox, you can set a higher storage quota, like 10gb. Exchange 2010 brings in huge performance improvement and can cope with large mailbioxes.
It sounds like to me that Microsoft thinks people create PSTs for the shake of creating PSTs and this would be a way to centrally manage and store them. However, that is not the case in our experience/enviroment. The people who are creating PST's are people who have archived mail off the server because they were reaching their quota level. It is then THEIR responsibility to backup and manage that PST file if they need something out of it. We don't have space to give them space for a mailbox AND a seperate archive mailbox. If we did, we would just increase their quota on their main mailbox. So still, for us, the archive mailbox is pointless unless we can move it out of the mailbox database the user currently sits in. We could then move it to slower speed storage, and maybe a location that gets backed up less often to cut down on backup time/storage/tapes.
Hi Jason,
I agree to the second half of your comments. Microsoft has to come up with a feature to have the archive mailbox to be run on cheap storage. But, I can't agree to the fact that it is the user's responsibility to backup PST files and take care of it. It is because of lack of allowed mailbox space that they tend to go for PST files.
One good thing with having archive mailbox is that all mails are searchable with the new Cross Mailbox Search feature and the users can access their emails at all times irrespective of their location.
Ok seriously Rajith, I don't think you really understand what everyone here is trying to say...
None of the people posting here care at all about having non-centralized PSTs. They care about one thing, offloading old Exchange mail from their primary server onto slow bulk storage. If I have a 1GB mailbox and a 10GB online archive, why don't I just make an 11GB mailbox? Then the users don't even have to look through 2 different places for their mail, it's all in one spot. Because the online archive data is stored on the same heads, you will suffer the same performance decrease whether your 10GB of mail is in one mailbox or two.
Pleasae understand that this feature is truly USELESS for anyone in an enterprise environment.
Your argument about being able to centrally manage mail as opposed to using PSTs is moot because you can just make the user's primary mailbox 11GB and have EXACTLY the same result, no PST and online availability.
As well your point about differing backup schedules is moot as well because if users maintain the ability to update the Online Archive whenever they want, you will HAVE to back it up at least as frequently as your primary mailbox anyways.
-M
blog.matthewtrotter.com
Hi Matthew,
I do take your point and as I have repeatedly said in my previous comments, Microsoft has to come up with an option to have archive mailboxes on a mailbox database of our choice, so that we can have those on cheaper disks.
But, I disagree to the point that it is completely useless. There are thousands of companies who have staff with PST files on their local drive. These emails are hard to manage, backup and against complaince standards. The archive mailbox is an attempt to get rid of PST files (a first step in the process) and at the same time make things a bit easier for admins.
I do agree that it has to improve a lot! First will ofcourse be the option to host it on a database of admin's choice.
Rajith,
I've been using Exchange for over 10 years as a consultant and in my own business. Yes, I've seen companies use PST files but that was early on. I've delt with over several hundred clients and can tell you that in the past 8 years no compnay I've done business with uses PST files. As stated earlier PST files corrupt easily. Allowing users to create PST files also compromises a companies security. In my opinion an Exchange Administrator that allows the use of PST files isn't doing his job.
Based on the above comments it seems that the consensus is that this is not a an archive solution. I agree that it's not.
Microsoft should spend more time listening to what people want instead of telling them what they want. Until this solution allows for true compressed archiving to a different media than it not truly archiving. Putting everything in the same databse file and calling it archiving is ridiculous.
Hi Anonymous,
I totally agree with you. MS has to develop the feature giving admins more options.
But, I have seen smaller companies using PST files because of lack of budget for more storage & admins are forced to show the "PST route" for users whose mailboxes get filled fast and still needs to keep all those old emails.
Thanks for your comments. And yes, it is not archiving at all!
Wow what a bummer. And to think I was excited about the Archive capability just to find out it is useless. What the hell were they thinking. As said many times in this thread " you might as well give them bigger mailboxes". Very Disappointing that I cannot use this to actually Archive mail to a cheaper storage solution.
The fact that we can't choose on which mailbox database the archive mailbox resides is a big drawback. Hopefully, it will be corrected in SP1.
Hi, will this be available from Windows Mobile?
Rajith,
Yes it is a drawback like everyone has commented, however the problem at hand is not actually that it is on the same database. Although it is not ideal for us Admins, we can now move our databases to cheap disks. I will be taking mine off our FC disks and onto SAS.
I will also be creating more Storage Groups to divide the database size.
The actual problem i am facing is backups, and now me requiring to back up the identical data nightly.
Hopefully SP1 will come with the added functionality.
Regards,
Ivan
I agree Ivan. Lets hope that SP1 brings the necessary improvements for archiving.
HI Rajith
Is achiving supported on outlook 2003, I have enabled achiving on one mailbox, but i don't see archive folder automatically appearing
Thanks
Edward
Hi Edward,
Archive mailbox is only available in Outlook 2010 and OWA 2010.
I do not agree that the online-archive is totally useless.
If your goal is the reduct the size of your Outlook .OST file, then the archive achieves this.
Valid point Anonymous. Unlike normal mailbox, Archive mailbox doesn't use OST files!
MS has been optimizing OST files since Outlook 2007 SP2 / 2010, so taking out the availability of offline archive is somewhat redundant.
Although disk performance has been increased sufficiently in Exchange 2010, having the same database for archiving doesn’t make any sense.
Archives are less frequently accessed and should be stored on low costs disks.
How are archived mailboxes being backed up, as they don’t need the same intensity as the normal mailbox store backup. At the end of the day the mailbox store (in our situation) will still have a very large size, which may cause issues in , storage, maintenance, backup and restore.
I completely agree with you Marald. Let's hope that MS will provide us with an option to select the database for archive mailboxes in the coming service pack!
In a 'real' Compliance / Retention environment there is no way you would be allowed to leave the decision / action of manually importing the PST files into the Archive Mailbox to the end users.
1. Do they even know where their PST files are.
2. Will they actually do it
3. Do they even care
It needs to be a centrally controlled, automated process as with all Compliance related tasks - leaving it to user is opening yourself to risk...
.. Ken
Hi Ken,
Totally agree with you. I consider archive mailbox only to be an option to get rid of the local PST files. You can block users creating new PST files or dropping content into existing ones by using group policy.
Here's a quick poll:
How many of you have had to deal with users who have 5+ GB OST files?
Ever have to recreate an OST (after recreating an Outlook profile) off of the LAN?
Archives aren't cached to the OST and they negate the need for PST files on the user's laptop (which will ultimately get bricked, lost, or stolen at some point). Archiving in Exchange 2010 isn't a replacement for Enterprise Vault of NearPoint, it's a bridge between PST files and an enterprise-class archiving solution.
Let's try to keep this in perspective.
How about a read oly database that will incude all past emails for consultation only?
This sounds ok for us. We're on Ex2003Std and have reached our database size limit of 75GB.
We don't want to delete emails, we don't want to use PST. We have some mailboxes upto 15GB and they use OST files too!
So Ex2010 with mailbox archive is good for us - even with all the limitations mentioned above.
But, I've just discovered we have to use Outlook 2010, which means we have to upgrade all our clients office package! Now that's ridiculous. A plugin for our Outlook 2003 and our Outlook 2007 clients, and we would have had the perfect solution - sort of. There's always a catch with Microsoft isn't there.
There is always a catch Anonymous. The only other option is to use OWA 2010, it will give the archive mailbox feature.
Lets imagine. Here is a basic solution for archiving without using and troubleshooting 3. party strange, painfull and mysterious tools.
1-E2k10 should expand archiving to a different server and store installed on cheap disks
2-Expand journalling: e2k10 can journal all mails that are send and archiving exchange pulls the mails from journal and stores into a read only journal archive store
3-allow users to search and recover mails in both pst archive and journal arhive store
I think it should be so difficult: ESE db is there, mapi access to journal mailbox is there, exchange search, owa 2010 is there. All ms needs to do is reuse and combine them.
"Anonymous said...
This sounds ok for us. We're on Ex2003Std and have reached our database size limit of 75GB.
We don't want to delete emails, we don't want to use PST. We have some mailboxes upto 15GB and they use OST files too!
So Ex2010 with mailbox archive is good for us - even with all the limitations mentioned above."
Why not just use Ex2010 without the archive mailbox feature? You can make larger primary mailboxes, and there is no 75gb limit afaik.
So SP1 details have arrived and answered a lot of discussion points in here. Now you CAN move the archives to different storage and separate this from the mailbox, allowing for different backup schedules, cheaper disk and import the god awful PST files directly into them!
Seems that M$ have listened to customer complaints and solve at least some of the issues..
AND with SP1 the archive is now available to OL2007. Roll on June/July...
Well, I can tell you tha after just installing a pair of Enterprise 2010 exchange servers I was very dissapointed to see how the archiving works. I have users with over 50GB in PST files I was hoping to centralize into a Database. I have about 2 TB of PST files I need to find a location for and I was waiting to see what 2010 had in store. Man o Man only to find out that it doesn't even work without Outlook 2010 was a bit of a surprise as well. I sure hope there is a patch on the way. I can imagine the CEO's face when I tell him he has to access his online archive through the web client. :) He is gonna have a cow.
To be honest with you I could have accomplished more with just using Public folders and restricting rights to the users. Create a public folder for each user, locate the public folder on a cheap NAS and have the users just dump there email into it.
Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for the update. Yes, SP1 will give more options around archive mailbox.
I know this is reperating the obvious, but Micrsoft have completely missed the point here. My business manages muliple SBS boxes for clients. Our overriding problem is managing the (single) enormous Exchange database. With SBS you don't even have the option of creating multiple stores - what possible reason could MS have for imposing this restriction in SBS?
Here we're talking about small businesses. They typically don't have multiple servers or the capability to offsite data to multiple centres. They operate from one premises and typically have one server (SBS). For disaster recovery, we need to be able to offsite their database reliably every night. The only feaible way of doing that is with offsite backup software to a remote storage site.
Here we're talking about small businesses. They don't have big-pipe, expensive leased line internet connections. They'll typically have ADSL, bonded if lucky, SDSL if really lucky. Hence upload capacity is severly restricted.
To backup even a relatively small 15GB Exchange database offsite each night is not a simple matter. We use intelligent software to do differential backups that makes it possible to backup each night, but we still have to run regular full backups when the differentials get too large. Forget incrementals, they use too much offsite storage and make restoring a full backup a real headache.
So what do all my small business customers need? A way to manage their Exchange mailbox so it contains just the data they need, which is tyically the last 6 months. What we really want is a way to archive mails to individual stores on the server which can then be accessed via the client. PSTs themselves aren't the problem. The problem is that they have to reside on the local machine. If users could have PSTs on the server that actually work across a LAN then we'd have no problem. What we don't want is another mammoth database that will just become another headache to backup.
We need to be able to break up each users archive into manageable chunks so that we have a set of much smaller files, say 6 month archives for arguments sake. That would allow us to make decisions on what get's backed up when and where.
What Microsoft have come up with is pointless as far as small business is concerned. The solution is simple - don't drop PSTs, make them usable across the LAN. A simple server service that provides a secure interface to multiple local PST files without the client having to physically open the PST across the LAN is all that is needed.
We installed the archive function thinking we could get rid of our third party archiving system (SourceOne), however one month later we have removed all Exchange archiving and expanded our SourceOne system. Even if a SP adds more features this is not really an archiving replacement and if you go for lots of DAG's (like we do) then it is a lot of storage required for old archive data. With our SLA we can have our archive down for a day - so we continue to move and shortcut old data (which we can backup daily) using SourceOne and we only use Exchange for what it is good for. Please be warned - archiving as far as MicroSoft are concerned is different to our view of archiving, and finally, third party tools collect real-time from the journal mailboxes, in Exchange you leave everything in the journal mailbox, after only 1 month it took us 20 mins to open the journal mailbox - not good.
Regards
Tim
NXT
Good Morning
I installed the Exchange 2010 server in my company, also enabled the Archive, but I can not export the content that goes into the archive, anyone know any command that I can export the archive to a file. PST?
I await a response. Grateful
joao.silveira@gci.com.br
Joao Fernando
I'd also like to know if it's possible to export the archive to PST via Export-Mailbox or similar on the Exchange server.
I belive that we are all agree that MS has to rethink archiving solution. It has improved Exchange capabilities since 4.5/5.
Currently the archiving presented to us is not helping.
we understand that disk are now cheaper but why having two mailboxes if both are sitting on the same database?
I hope the next SP will bring the expectation we are discussing here.
Guys, happy that MS has changed the archive mailbox after listening to customer feedback. Check my latest article for more info http://www.howexchangeworks.com/2010/06/archive-mailbox-improvements-in.html
Post a Comment