Is this 100GB recommendation for all the user data + whitespace + content indexing + dumpster, etc..? So if I have a volume of 210GB (100GB recommendation + 110% for maintenance tasks/RSG), that should be fine as long as the database doesn't go over 100GB, correct? I know it's not a hard limit, but a general recommendation.I can't imagine keeping the 2GB user default when it's a 100GB recommendation. You'll barely have any user's on your database!

iicroyal wrote: I can't imagine keeping the 2GB user default when it's a 100GB recommendation. You'll barely have any user's on your database! Thats fine - use multiple databases for your heavy users. You can have 50! that's a max of a 5TB, which is 2500 users per server all with 2GB!!!

Mike Crowley wrote: iicroyal wrote: I can't imagine keeping the 2GB user default when it's a 100GB recommendation. You'll barely have any user's on your database! Thats fine - use multiple databases for your heavy users. You can have 50! that's a max of a 5TB, which is 2500 users per server all with 2GB!!!That brings me back to my original question. You said 50 users * 2GB = 100GB database. So is the 100GB recommendation just for user data or should I really have less than 50 users so after the whitespace, content indexing, etc. is calculated into it, the database will then be 100GB? So wouldn't it be more like 40 users per database so after all the whitespace, content indexing, etc. it will be 100GB and not just user data?

"Microsoft recommends that the database size should not be more than 100GB in size when continuous replication is not in use and no more than 200GB when continuous replication is in use. This is by no means a hard limit, but a recommendation based on the impact database size has to recovery times." Given the above statement, I don't think it would matter if you actually had 110GB due to max whitespace, etc. It's just a recommendation, but to answer your question, I would think they generically intended 100GB total, meaning more similar to your 40 user scenario. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb738147(EXCHG.80).aspx & http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432207.aspx & http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/01/15/432199.aspx

I have always read that recommendation as the size of the actual .EDB database files; but Mike's point is correct; it's simply a sizing recommendation, the server will not fail if it grows to 110GB or higher. You just run into the increased risks of dealing with a large store.

Agreed. the .edb files would include any whitespace mentioned above.