4

I'm not an Exchange SME by any means, so please forgive my ignorance. Does Exchange have different methods of handling email other than delivering a copy of an email to each mailbox it's intended for? For example, if I want 50 people to receive an email that has a 5mb attachment, 50 copies of the email will be created and distributed to all mailboxes, which will generate 250MB of traffic and 250MB of required storage.

But, what if instead of duplicating the email 50 times, it only creates the one email and gives permissions to 50 people to view it. To the user, everything is still the same: an email pops up in their inbox and they can forward and delete it, move it to a different folder, create rules, etc. The only difference is that there's only one instance of the message that many people have access to instead of many instances of the message where only one person has access to each instance. A user's mailbox no longer stores emails, but instead just stores links to emails. Deleting a message from someone's inbox doesn't actually delete the message, but instead just removes the link to the message from the user's mailbox.

This could cut down email storage and bandwidth and improve Exchange administration exponentially. If I need to search Exchange for an email sent from a specific outside sender with a specific subject with a specific attachment, I'd have to search across the entire enterprise, through every single mailbox to find all remnants of that email. However, with this other method, I'd just have to search the one database to see if the email exists. I could delete the email entirely, or just delete all the links to it so that it still exists, but doesn't show up in anyone's "mailbox" so that I can grab a copy of it and do some forensics on the attachment.

I hope this makes sense? Is there something like this that exists for Exchange? Thanks.

beechfuzz
  • 39
  • 1
  • I presume the desired behavior of the finished product would be to download the email locally upon viewing? Otherwise, viewing a 5MB email 10 times would result in "wasted" bandwidth. – MonkeyZeus Nov 07 '16 at 19:40

3 Answers3

9

What you're talking about is Single Instance Storage (SIS). Exchange in the version 4/5 days did have it. But the short answer as to why it doesn't exist anymore is that it adds complexity, and storage is cheap nowadays. SIS is simply less relevant.

See https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/exchange/2010/02/22/dude-wheres-my-single-instance/

longneck
  • 23,082
  • 4
  • 52
  • 86
  • `storage is cheap` only for consumers. Company / enterprise storage needs higher quality SSD / HDD + the need to RAID + backup / retention (consider 7 years for audit purposes) + off-site backup + nightly sync (or live sync). Now you are also using bandwidth, which can cost more than the whole rack of servers combined, depending on where you live. Bottom line - wasting resources at company level is costly. – Victor Zakharov Nov 07 '16 at 18:45
  • 1
    I stand by my statement: storage is cheap. When we bought 2 Exchange servers for clustering using shared storage in 2005, we spent $150k for 200 users. $100k was for storage. When we migrated to Exchange 2010 in 2012, we spent $40k on two servers with their own local storage for 200 users. – longneck Nov 07 '16 at 18:50
  • It seems that we have a different understanding of the word "cheap" + there is also maintenance cost. Also in your region bandwidth may be cheap, so keeping an offsite copy and/or doing tape backups is not an issue. What if 100 mbit unmetered line costs 1000-2000$/month or more? – Victor Zakharov Nov 07 '16 at 18:53
  • The other issue with SIS (and similar solutions) is the lack of data redundancy. I can't tell you how many times I had to go to backups or repair mailbox corruption as a Domino admin because some email or attachment that was linked out to 800 people got corrupted/deleted/whatever. When everyone has their own copy, that's not an issue. – HopelessN00b Nov 07 '16 at 19:39
  • For Exchange workloads, one should not be buying fancy storage. Office 365 runs on physical servers and JBOD storage, with redundancy in the form of mailbox data on (3+1) hosts. Monolithic Exchange boxes are not the recommended practice, and haven't been for quite a while. – blaughw Nov 07 '16 at 19:51
2

You could also implement an inbound-and-outbound 3rd-party large-file-attachment service if you're concerned about sizing storage.

mfinni
  • 36,144
  • 4
  • 53
  • 86
0

Its called Office365 - Exchange online and OneDrive. Does exactly as you describe. The attachments are stored in the cloud and then links sent around.

Sembee
  • 2,884
  • 1
  • 8
  • 11