Some, but not all, users get the MapiExceptionNamedPropsQuotaExceeded when sending certain types of meeting requests. I understand (mostly) why this exists. My question is how to best increase this quota in a CCR, and what is the recommended setting for this? My assumption is to increase the quota on the passive node, restart the passive node, move the cluster to the passive node, then update the old active (now passive). http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb851493%28EXCHG.80%29.aspx Lastly what should I set it to? 32K right away?

you can do on both nodes, the changes take effeect after ur restart ur IS. i wouldnt change it to 32k rightway, i would set it to 28k to give u some breathing space.Thiyagu | MCTS/MCITP - Exchange 2007 | MCSE 2003[Messaging] | http://www.myExchangeWorld.com. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

No, do not set to 32K. I would set it to a small amount above what it is now. The number you are setting is the threshold at which you get a warning. 32K is the max number of named props that can be created per store, so if you set to 32K, it will be too late if you hit that amount. Be sure to read this and apply the correct updates to help mitigate the named prop issue: http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2010/07/29/455687.aspx Confused About Named Properties Quotas in Exchange 2003 and Exchange 2007? Join the Club!

Ok, first thanks, this is good information. I am post SP1 - RU8, yet still have this problem. I'm guessing I was too late in applying RU8 and I have people with NamedProps beyond the 16k now and I still need to increase my quota a bit to handle the NamedProp propagation that already occurred? I more or less have stopped the bleeding, but still have to fix the problem that was created? Also, I assume people mean UR8 (Update Rollup 8) as Microsoft calls them, even though that article refers to them as RU8?

Ok, first thanks, this is good information. I am post SP1 - RU8, yet still have this problem. I'm guessing I was too late in applying RU8 and I have people with NamedProps beyond the 16k now and I still need to increase my quota a bit to handle the NamedProp propagation that already occurred? I more or less have stopped the bleeding, but still have to fix the problem that was created? Also, I assume people mean UR8 (Update Rollup 8) as Microsoft calls them, even though that article refers to them as RU8? Yes, RU8/UR8 are the same thing. You still need to raise the level, yes. Note that you could also move mailboxes to a new store. Moving mailboxes doesnt clear the named properties, but you would start fresh and only those properties still associated with existing messages would be moved over.

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:32:34 +0000, AR5 wrote: >Ok, first thanks, this is good information. > >I am post SP1 - RU8, yet still have this problem. I'm guessing I was too late in applying RU8 Not necessarily. If you have authenticated users sending messages with X-headers those will still be accepted. I'm not sure if the same thing is true of anonymous connections arriving at receive connectors with the "Externally secured" authentication enabled. --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP --- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP