Dan,

Since no one has responded, I'll put my 2 cents worth in...... my feable
understanding of the aggrgates concept is that is does not affect the
storage needs of the databse, but affects the transfer of the files...

but again...... I do admit my lack of hard evidence for this concluusion......




At 04:48 PM 7/7/98 -0400, you wrote:
>We are currently running V2 server and backing up, amoungst other things,
Notes
>database servers. Currently, we are doing full backups with the
backup/archive
>client. After we complete our Notes agent testing, we will be moving to a
>combination of weekly b/a client backups and daily agent backups. I know that
>the database usage will skyrocket. In V2, it's simply a matter of calculating
>the number of documents in all of the databases and mulitplying by 600
bytes to
>obtain the database usage.
>
>Now, with V3 we have small file aggregates. I still do not have the
nety-grity
>details of how this works. I was under the impression that if you have a
lot of
>small files, then the small file aggregates would reduce the database storage
>required in tracking them. However, the V3 ADSM admin guide section which
>describes calculating the database usage is exactly the same as with the V2
>admin guide.
>
>My question: if you have a lot of small files (such as Notes e-mail
documents),
>will the small file aggregates reduce the storage needs of you database,
or does
>it simply improve the throughput when moving the aggregates from place to
place?
>
>Thanks in advance for any help.
>
>