1. If you're receiving a message that you are banned from the Current Events or Politics forums, it's not you specifically: those forums have been hidden for all users. For more info, see here.
    Dismiss Notice

Just Started at a new company and...

Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by The Watcher, Dec 3, 2014.

  1. Gunna

    Gunna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,889
    Location:
    Brisbane
    You can move the emails to slower disks on a different server.

    SATA HDD's while slower wont need to be accessed by all staff at the same time like the HDD's hosting the mailbox database does.

    You are right that overall the amount of data is the same however I can buy 2TB or 3TB sata drives, You can get 3 x 900GB(2.7TB) SAS drives which cost a hell of a lot more than that single 3TB SATA drive.


    Not every business has employees that bill at that rate though.
     
  2. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    20,002
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    And one that wouldn't exist in the real world. Any halfway decent law firm isn't keeping their documents in email.
     
  3. HumbleBum

    HumbleBum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    16,771
    Location:
    United States
    On a dropbox folder, with auto sync.

    Internal IT refuse to address the issue, so its been solved by staff.

    Yes its ridiculous.

    7 years of PST's. never had a single issue.
     
  4. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    66,933
    Location:
    brisbane
    You'd be surprised, IT occasionally have these questions asked to them (usually by the same few users) - we then look for suitable solutions, prepare proposals including pricing etc. Put them to a board of directors who look at it and ask what the business case actually is and knock it back, because if there's one thing they hate it's spending money on things that aren't payrises for themselves.

    We've put EV to our board a couple of times - it was to cater for a select few users - those users just have slightly larger mailboxes instead now.

    The reality is very few users at least in our organisation require large mailboxes. Our CAD users simply use company dropboxes to get their stuff out to clients - no big mailbox required.

    Oh yeah, have fun with those pst's when they one day corrupt - it's not a matter of if but when - I've had to recover corrupted pst's in the past. It's not overly hard for someone who knows how, but things usually get lost. And if you are doing what you say you are, hot damn your IT dept can't be very observant.

    Oh and I do find 200MB ridiculous - let's just get that straight - I also find 15GB ridiculous too.
     
  5. cbb1935

    cbb1935 Guest

    A while back we had mail server issues, so I was getting people to email my company gmail address and forwarding it onto users (part of testing to see what the issue was).
     
  6. Gunna

    Gunna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,889
    Location:
    Brisbane
    So you have kept that process in place by the sounds of it instead of resolving the issue?
     
  7. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    14,610
    The same can be done natively using archive mailboxes in Exchange since 2010, and I expect other systems have something similar. Capacity planning and Tiering should cover this, regardless of how/where the mail ends up, you will need the disk to store it on.

    Sure, not every business bills at it, and as Tinian points out, those that do probably have a purpose built or heavily customised DMS for management of files, and isn't using Outlook, but the factors are the same.

    For some companies, its cheaper to have employees spend time managing mailbox size, for others, its more cost effective just to whack in another SAN.

    True Dat. and if the DMS does versioning well, there are good space savings to be had.

    If there is a large amount of Shadow IT going on in your work place, its a good pointer that the actual IT department aren't keeping up with the needs of the business.

    I find the idea of any sort of arbitrary limit ridiculous, especially if you prohibit sending or receiving when they are exceeded.

    Sure, usable space/Number of mailboxes makes sense, And guarantees you don't fill your disks, but looking at actual used mailboxes here, I've got a stack of users that have decent sized mailboxes, a stack with tiny ones... giving them all 2GB means I've got a bunch of angry users, and a bunch of users who don't notice, with the only benefit being 'its impossible to run out of space'

    As the girl from Frozen sings... Let it Grow, Let it Grow, Let It Grow.
     
  8. patto

    patto Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,168
    But still hell of alot cheaper than paying your proffessionals to be an email janitor.

    Come on. You and others keep saying it is expensive. So name a cost figure per month per user.


    You say laziness, I say being productive. My time is being charged out at $2 per minute. Surely it is better for me to be spending time on productive work rather than worrying about email quotas.

    Is it? If every employee has to spend more time screwing around accessing the copy then it is not worth it.

    Per user the cost is negligible. For a business of that spends tens of thousands on its email, ten grand is cheap. So if it is cost tens of thousands per month what is the cost per user?

    You clearly have no idea about the time involved.

    Why needlessly. Keeping employees productive is far more important.


    Even at rates of 10x less it is still uneconomic to have staff spending time worrying about email quotas and deleting emails. Not to mention the costs of not having the needed information at their fingertips should deleted email be needed.

    Most professional firms this is the case.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2014
  9. HumbleBum

    HumbleBum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    16,771
    Location:
    United States
    We dont even have network file storage, Yes its that bad.
     
  10. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    20,002
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    That's not how it's charged. There's a service charge per user and additional storage which is invariably per GB.

    What time screwing around? I've already pointed out how simple it is.

    What? That statement makes no sense at all.

    1. I said it, not power, and
    2. I already told you what was involved.
    What part of this is difficult to understand? No requirement to pay for additional storage.
     
  11. patto

    patto Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,168
    Which is?


    It isn't quick and it isn't simple. And what gets even more complicated is recovering the information in an email that occurred 1.5 years ago if you've deleted the email.

    It makes complete sense. Email is an extremely minor cost to a business. Wages are certainly not.

    But instead require employees to waste their time worrying about email quotas and being less productive due to the lack of access to old emails.

    Wages are far higher than the cost of storage.
     
  12. Tinian

    Tinian Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    20,002
    Location:
    15.0° N, 145.63° E
    Commercial in confidence. That should be blindingly fucking obvious.

    1. It is; I've already told you, and
    2. The necessary information isn't deleted.

    The wages component is generally considered to be productive. On going charges for superfluous storage is an unnecessary expense most businesses seek to eliminate.

    Employees don't have to waste time worrying about quotas - it's three clicks once a month or less and auto-archive. Auto. With less email, they're more productive because it takes less time to find old emails.

    Irrelevant.
     
  13. Gunna

    Gunna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,889
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I wouldn't say it is an extremely minor cost.

    If we are talking on-premiuse we have

    Hardware - Primary (including storage)
    Hardware - secondary if in place (storage)
    Hardware - Backup
    Hardware - Network
    Licences - Server
    Licences - Exchange
    Licences - Backup software\agent (Exchange often incurs an additional cost etc)
    Licences - CALS
    Anti-virus
    Anti-Spam
    Cost of IT staff to maintain the systems

    Divide the above costs by the number of employees and you have the cost of emails per user. Add additional services\software if required.
     
  14. Arctic_Silver08

    Arctic_Silver08 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,555
    The initial setup isn't cheap, but on-going storage isn't that big of a deal - I use to run multiple exchange servers where users would have 10-25GB limits (Talking about a user base of 1500-2000~)
     
  15. cyclobs

    cyclobs Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2010
    Messages:
    561
    Location:
    Wee Waa, NSW
    We have a 2GB limit on all emails and we usually don't budge it. If people are hitting the limit (which is rare) we tell them to either delete unwanted emails or save the attachment somewhere and delete it from the email to reduce the size.
     
  16. patto

    patto Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,168
    Continue to avoid the question... Though typical per user costs can easily be found online. And they are equivalent to a few hours work per user per year. In other words totally negligible.

    Wow. I'm not sure how you can achieve this. The fact of the matter is that with small quotas, necessary emails ARE deleted.


    How is it superfluous storage if it saves users time and allows them to be more productive?

    It really is not. You clearly have not had much interaction with the users you supposedly serve. I am one such user, so are my colleagues. I've seen the time wasted when colleagues mail box fills up.

    Are you serious!? It is entirely relevant. Of course it might not be relevent to your IT budget but it is completely relevant to the bottom line.


    You can list all the costs you like, it still is minor compared to paying employees to worry about quotas.

    If it really is so expensive how can Google etc, offer 15Gig++ for free?
     
  17. bacco|007

    bacco|007 Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2002
    Messages:
    461
    Location:
    Tamworth, NSW
    50mb (yep, mb) limit for us - under 'special' circumstances you can get it increased to 200mb.

    It's intended to make us use our records management system as we are supposed to (and are legislatively bound to)
     
  18. EvilGenius

    EvilGenius Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    10,835
    Location:
    elsewhere
    A lot of staff with us have used email archives almost exclusively. Email arrives in inbox, sorted into an archive straight away. This was fine at the time as we had a 600mb hard limit on most user mailboxes, with some managers and certain positions granted 1gb mailboxes.

    Only problem being there was no backups of those archives, so if a pc spat out it's hdd, there was very little I could do for them.


    We've now moved to exchange 2010 and (unfortunately) are using commvault to archive emails over a month old. The required plugin and retrieval process have been driving users mad though, and knowing that exchange has a native function that apparently works much better makes it all the worse having to support commvault.
     
  19. cbb1935

    cbb1935 Guest

    Nope, it's been resolved.

    That was back when we were with Telstra and had no end of issues with internet reliability.
     
  20. rainwulf

    rainwulf Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,275
    Location:
    bris.qld.aus
    It costs a bit more for the exchange licences, but it's fantastic.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: