Exchange Server Forums

Checking Replciation Status

Users viewing this topic: none

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Microsoft Exchange 2000] >> Public Folders >> Checking Replciation Status

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Limited time MSExchange.org offer! -- 1.Sep.2008 1:00:00 PM

TechGenix and SolarWinds have partnered to provide free copies of SolarWinds Exchange Monitor to all visitors who join the MSExchange.org Forums. SolarWinds Exchange Monitor is a handy desktop dashboard that continuously monitors Microsoft Exchange to deliver real-time insight into Exchange services, mail queue sizes, and host server health. Learn more about Exchange Monitor and the free offer!

Checking Replciation Status - 1.Sep.2005 10:04:00 AM

arlgroup

Posts: 2
Joined: 1.Sep.2005
From: Northern Virginia
Status: offline

I am currently in the process of replicating my public folders from an Exchange 2k server to a Exchange 2k3 server. I have almost 16gigs of data in over 600 folders. Could someone point me to a script or other automated method of checking the replication status?

How about a script that I could run on the exchange 2k server that would give me the public folder name and item count? I can do this already on Exchange 2k3 by scripting \root\MicrosoftExchangeV2.

How have others with large Public Folder stores gone about checking on the completion of replciation?

Thanks,
Hugh

Post #: 1

Featured Links*

RE: Checking Replciation Status - 6.Sep.2005 11:51:41 AM

arlgroup

Posts: 2
Joined: 1.Sep.2005
From: Northern Virginia
Status: offline

This is what I propose to do. Using the ESM in Exchange 2003 I am using the "Export List: command to export the public folder listings of each server to a text file. I am then importing the text files into two tables in a database and running a query to find the folders that have matching names, paths and item counts. The output of this query should be a list of public folders that have successfully replicated. Any comments?

thanks,
Hugh

(in reply to arlgroup)

Post #: 2