Unity UM Thresholds

Unanswered Question
Sep 11th, 2008
User Badges:

I have a customer who has certain users who complain about dead air when accessing their Unity mailbox through the phone. They are on Unified Messaging. Unity 5 with Exchange 2K7. They can call in, get dead air, call back in and they get right int.

This customer has huge mailboxes. 5-10 Gigs is very common and it seems like the people that have issues have upwards of 50,000 messages.

Now I know the official documented limit is 100MB in the Inbox. And my suspicion is that they dead air is Unity indexing the box. Then is gets cached for a certain amount of time and when the person calls back in that is why it gets in.

So this is all my theoretical assumptions. So has anyone else ever run across this and gotten and official technical explanation that I can provide the customer. I have applied all the ES's that would speed up the process and tweaked Exchange and Unity both to their limit. So I think I have done all I can do outside of having users delete messages.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Tommer Catlin Thu, 09/11/2008 - 07:10
User Badges:
  • Green, 3000 points or more

For a test, I would take someone's mailbox that has 50,000 items in it, move all those items to another folder so the Inbox has Zero items in it. Leave a vm message and call back in. Is there a lag? If not, keep it monitored for a couple days. If no lag appears it's most likely the about items in the inbox it has to index. Typically 50,000 is way way way out of line. Even for for MS standards. They must have poor performance in Outlook anyways, it would make sense to file that stuff into a sub folder by year is what i do because Im lazy also about my inbox.

Although sometimes, when you move items from the inbox to a sub folder, let Exchange "catch up" on the message moves that happened. Then move them back into the Inbox, it will create a new index and it might be faster then. But still, you are putting lipstick on a pig. (in the news lately right?!)


This Discussion