With Exchange 2010 there was a database per-server limit of 100 databases.  How about Exchange 2013?  In Exchange 2013 this number was reduced to 50 databases per-server. This is because it utilizes more CPU and memory than its predecessors. This is due to the architecture changes that were made, as well as the changes to reduce disk IO so that more mailboxes can be deployed per disk.

Exchange 2013

In Exchange 2013 this number was reduced to 50 databases per-server. This is because it utilizes more CPU and memory than its predecessors. This is due to the architecture changes that were made, as well as the changes to reduce disk IO so that more mailboxes can be deployed per disk.

Still, there has been some misconception that more servers would be needed in environments where there were typically more than 50 mailbox databases per server.  This is, in light of the fact, that databases can support substantially more mailboxes. How do you mitigate artificially limited architectures due to the supported databases per-server constraint?  Well, MS has decided to increase the supported databases per-server in Exchange 2013 from 50 to 100 with CU 2.  This is slated for release later this summer. Which means it should help prevent any misconceptions and provide yet another reason to migrate!!

Helpful Article

http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2013/06/04/per-server-database-limits-explained.aspx


About Oakwood

Since 1981, Oakwood has been helping companies of all sizes, across all industries, solve their business problems.  We bring world-class consultants to architect, design and deploy technology solutions to move your company forward.   Our proven approach guarantees better business outcomes.  With flexible engagement options, your project is delivered on-time and on budget.  11,000 satisfied clients can’t be wrong.

Like what you've read? Please spread the word!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *