Peter de Haas still thinks Exchange´s single instance store is "fairly powerful"

As a tribute to being in Peter's country,I'm offering a link to his blog for the first time in a while...you'rewelcome for the traffic, Peter. :) The occasion?  Another example of Microsoft's insistent belief thatExchange's single instance store is a competitive advantage for Exchange.  I'm not sure what article Peteris quoting in this blog entry,but he writes:If a message is sent to one recipient andit is copied to 20 other recipients who reside in the same mailbox store,Exchange maintains only one copy of the message in its database. Pointersare then created. These pointers link both the original recipient and the20 additional recipients to the original message.Yeah,been there, done that, have lots of t-shirts.  It was called cc:Mailand it was a huge problem.  Why?  That shared store gets corruptedand bam! the whole post office was down.  In Exchange 200X, they havethis problem times 20 -- because Exchange actually doesn't have a singlestore anymore, they support up to 20.  And oh, with no managementtools to help an administrator decide which of the 20 storage groupsto put a user's mailbox in.  I can't see how MS can represent thisas a competitive advantage with a straight face -- I even saw a customerpresentation recently where they tried to cost justify a migration basedon this one feature alone (!). At any rate, Bill Buchan and Paul Mooney have the points right in theircomments on Peter's site.  Mr. Mooney writes "Disks are cheap- downtime isnt.".  It's that simple.  Domino's single mailboxper user architecture prevents a lot of service interruptions -- and whencombined with the only viable active/active shared-nothing clustering,this is why so many Domino environments run 99.999%+ available. Simple.