[cisco-voip] EWS Limits & Throttling Policy

[Justin Steinberg]

I've successfully used the 'paged view functionality' on the later versions
of Connections that works around this issue by staying under the EWS
default limits.

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/voice_ip_comm/connection/10x/unified_messaging/guide/10xcucumgx/10xcucumg020.html#83993


On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Daniel Pagan <dpagan at fidelus.com> wrote:

>  Folks:
>
>
>
> I’m hoping someone can share their experience with the Cisco recommended
> method for removing EWS limits on Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and higher. In
> earlier releases of Ex2010 the process of setting a throttling policy
> applied only to the UM service account, and any throttling performed would
> be applied to that service account and not to the target mailbox. Please
> correct me if my understanding is incorrect, but with E2010 SP2 RU4 and
> higher, the policy is to be applied to every target mailbox, which seems
> like it would impact all other EWS applications impersonating these target
> mailboxes.
>
> *Removing EWS Limits from Exchange 2010 SP2 RU4 and Later*
>
> Microsoft has enabled the client throttling policy feature by default. If
> there is no throttling policy already configured, Microsoft Exchange
> applies a default policy to all users. The default throttling policy is
> tailored for end user's load and not for an enterprise application like,
> Cisco Unity Connection using impersonation. If any Cisco Unity Connection
> users who are configured for unified messaging have mailboxes in Exchange
> 2010, configure the Exchange 2010 EWS limits for the unified messaging
> users mailbox by creating and applying a new mailbox policy to the unified
> messaging user mailbox account. If you do not configure EWS limits,
> messages may not be synchronized, and status changes (for example, from
> unread to read), changes to the subject line, and changes to the priority
> may not be replicated. In addition, attempts to access Exchange calendars
> and contacts may fail.
>
>
>
> *The MS KB referring to the throttling policy change*:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2713371
>
>
>
> Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but it seems like a backwards move. Has
> anyone seen any adverse effects of applying the Cisco recommended
> throttling values as the system default? Perhaps any problems where
> applying the throttling policy to the target mailbox impacts other EWS apps
> like BlackBerry Enterprise? Are you applying the throttling policy for
> every single UM enabled mailbox, individually, via management shell?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> - Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-voip mailing list
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20140911/5a35d49d/attachment.html>