I was at the Microsoft Exchange Conference earlier this week and it turns out that Exchange 2013 was designed with the vision of everyone having a 100GB size mailbox. I can remember a few years ago of just having a quota of 250MBs but now it's 1GB and I thought that was a huge win. I can't imagine having a mailbox size 100 times larger. That would be just ridicously AWESOME... I am a huge fan of minimizing the dreaded process of moving my email messages to a pst file. Let me just do the math quickly. Over the last 4 years, my personal PSTs have accumulated to ~15.68GB. Let's just round that off to ~4GB of email per year and I'm praying that I don't get more than that average. That is about 11MB of email daily (365 days given that email is never off and I'm always connected) or 16MB of email if you only count working days (260 days in a calendar year). That is like 9,309 days (25.5 years) without having to do that drag and drop process of moving my messages to a PST.
25.5 years... That basically means I would never have to do it again. I would consider myself as a heavy email user so I'm sure light weight to moderate users could go between 50 to 100+ years before they ever hit that size. That would be just fantastic. The IT pro in me though expects some folks to reject this notion due to storage cost as the primary reason. Rightfully so if you are leveraging SANs (little dated but cost haven't come down that significant) but Microsoft has designed Exchange for JBODs like SATA drives so the cost of those are somewhere between .20 to .25 a GB. You guys can do the math. Of course you have to factor in other costs like replicas, but it sure does seem pretty reasonable to me from that perpective as well. Time to start the drive to #100GBMboxs. If any of you out there are planning for 100GB mailbox sizes, love to hear your experiences and how others can go about justifying it to their own IT management.