During the conversion from 2003 to 2010 I unchecked the Storage Limits for at the Organizational level due to some mailboxes that where larger than 2GB. Previously I did not have storage quotas set but wish to set some, so I went thru the mailboxes that where larger than the default limits we are going to implement and set a higher limit than the default level. I did this by going into Recipient Configuration->Mailbox->User Box Properties->Mailbox Settings->Storage Quotas. The issue I have after “grandfathered” people where set and I turned on the Organizational level limits it override the individual settings even though I had User mailbox database defaults unchecked. Am I doing this wrong?

Set storage quotas on the databases that fit what most people should have. If you've got two or multiple kinds of "most people" (aka, different groups of people) you may want to have two databases for 500MB and 1GB users for example. For the oddballs, just set them on the user mailbox as you described above. Mike Crowley Check out My Blog!

A big drawback to applying quota settings to databases is that when you want to change someone's quota you must move their mailbox or else you start having to deal with exceptions. -- Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . "Mike Crowley" wrote in message news:775918bd-324b-44db-bfb0-0fe9cdfab265... Set storage quotas on the databases that fit what most people should have. If you've got two or multiple kinds of "most people" (aka, different groups of people) you may want to have two databases for 500MB and 1GB users for example. For the oddballs, just set them on the user mailbox as you described above. Mike Crowley Check out My Blog! Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."

What then do you suggest? Mike Crowley Check out My Blog!

In general, I think it's usually best to not tie users to specific mailbox stores based on any criteria except where it is necessary to do so, as in the case of retention or archiving, where the settings are made at the store. In the specific case of mailbox quota, I think it's generally better to manage that through PowerShell scripts. -- Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." . "Mike Crowley" wrote in message news:8f00efad-29db-43ce-b0c8-3d96b05336c4... What then do you suggest? Mike Crowley Check out My Blog! Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."

That is basically what i ended up doing. It seems like the mailbox quota's get override by the upper level quota which doesn't make any sense to me but oh well.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 04:54:26 +0000, Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote: >A big drawback to applying quota settings to databases is that when you want to change someone's quota you must move their mailbox or else you start having to deal with exceptions. Or you wind up with lots of very small databases to handle the exceptions. That usually puts all the "important people" into the same database so any problem with that database takes all of them offline at the same time. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 14:30:58 +0000, Mike Crowley wrote: >What then do you suggest? If you must divide users into "storage categories" then assign some designation to those users (maybe a name, or number, in an unused easily accessible AD property) and put limits on the "exception" mailboxes. You can use the database default quotas to manage the majority of the users. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP

On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 15:14:32 +0000, Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote: >In general, I think it's usually best to not tie users to specific mailbox stores based on any criteria except where it is necessary to do so, as in the case of retention or archiving, where the settings are made at the store. In the specific case of mailbox quota, I think it's generally better to manage that through PowerShell scripts. Amen. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP

does anybody find how to make it work? All that was wrote here are workaround to fix MS problem. I also need fix some different user (few) with specific values and I don't want to create few database just to handle microsoft problems. Any answer are welcome.

Nothing posted here is a workaround to a Microsoft problem.Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."

@ EASF This thread isn’t about anything being broken. If you’re just venting, I suggest you start a blog. @ everyone else I have seen the light. ;) for IO and Risk-mitigation reasons, an even spread of users is better than lumping everyone together. Perhaps what EASF was getting at, was a feature request to make this easier to manage (vs PS scripting). Mike Crowley Check out My Blog!