In Exchange Server 2010, there is no more single instance storage (SIS). To help understand why SIS is gone, let's review a brief history of Exchange.
During the development of Exchange 4.0, we had...
Updated May 12, 2020
Version 4.0
Blog Post
One thing I noticed is you mentioned you can leverage cheap disk for your Exchange Mailbox Servers, however from my understanding using local disk or cheap disk typically involves using a HA scenario where you have at least three mailbox servers in a DAG. This is not always the case for most clients.
I also want to point out that archiving in Exchange 2010 currently goes to the same database where the users mailbox exist. This is difficult for clients to understand since their goal is to place the production database on prime disk and move archived email to the inexpensive disk. I have had a number of clients question this logic.
My question is will there ever be a way to have the Archiving mailbox on a seperate database which could reside on cheap disk and where the production databases could reside on SAN etc.
Otherwise, thanks for the great explaination. Many clients love DAG, moving them to three servers in a DAG always seems to be a bit more difficult though.
I also want to point out that archiving in Exchange 2010 currently goes to the same database where the users mailbox exist. This is difficult for clients to understand since their goal is to place the production database on prime disk and move archived email to the inexpensive disk. I have had a number of clients question this logic.
My question is will there ever be a way to have the Archiving mailbox on a seperate database which could reside on cheap disk and where the production databases could reside on SAN etc.
Otherwise, thanks for the great explaination. Many clients love DAG, moving them to three servers in a DAG always seems to be a bit more difficult though.