Released: Exchange Server 2013 RTM Cumulative Update 1

We know a lot of you have been waiting for this, and so it is with great excitement that we announce that Exchange Server 2013 RTM Cumulative Update 1 (CU1) has been released to the web and is available for immediate download! This is the first release using the new servicing model for Exchange Server 2013. In addition to this article, the Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 release notes are also available.

Note: Article links that may not have been available at the time of this post’s publishing are now available. Updated Exchange 2013 documentation, including Release Notes, is now available on TechNet.

CU1 is the minimum version of Exchange 2013 required for on-premises coexistence with supported legacy Exchange Server versions. The final build number for CU1 is 15.0.620.29. For more information on coexistence, check out the Planning and Deployment documentation, and this Ignite webcast covering deployment of and coexistence with Exchange Server 2013.

Upgrading/Deploying Cumulative Update 1

Unlike previous versions, cumulative updates do not use the rollup infrastructure; cumulative updates are actually full builds of the product, meaning that when you want to deploy a new server, you simply use the latest cumulative update build available and do not necessarily need to apply additional Exchange Server updates.

Active Directory Preparation

Prior to upgrading or deploying the new build onto a server, you will need to update Active Directory. For those of you with a diverse Active Directory permissions model you will want to perform the following steps:

  1. Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 includes schema changes. Therefore, you will need to execute setup.exe /PrepareSchema /IAcceptExchangeServerLicenseTerms.
  2. Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 includes enterprise Active Directory changes (e.g., RBAC roles have been updated to support new cmdlets and/or properties). Therefore, you will need to execute setup.exe /PrepareAD /IAcceptExchangeServerLicenseTerms.
  3. Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 includes changes to the permissions within the domain partition (e.g., Exchange Servers have been granted the ability to modify msExchActiveSyncDevices class on inetOrgPerson objects). Therefore, you will need to execute setup.exe /PrepareDomain /IAcceptExchangeServerLicenseTerms in each domain containing Exchange servers or mailboxes.
Note: If your environment contains only Exchange 2007, and you upgrade to Exchange 2013, keep in mind you cannot deploy Exchange 2010 in that environment at a later time. If you foresee a need to deploy Exchange 2010 servers into your environment, deploy an Exchange 2010 multi-role server (with all four servers roles) prior to executing Exchange 2013 setup.exe /PrepareAD. As long as you retain at least one role of each legacy server, you will continue to be able to install additional servers of that version into your coexistence environment. Once you remove the last server role of a legacy version, you will no longer be able to reintroduce that version into the environment.

Coexistence Pre-Deployment Step: OAB Verification

As mentioned in the Exchange Server 2013 CU1 release notes, when you deploy the first Exchange 2013 Mailbox server in an existing Exchange organization, a new default Offline Address Book is created.

Figure 1: The new OAB as shown in an Exchange Server 2010 SP3 & 2013 CU1 environment

All existing clients that rely on an OAB will see this new default OAB the next time they look for an OAB update. This will cause these clients to perform a full OAB download. To prevent this from happening, you can configure your existing mailbox databases to explicitly point to the current default OAB prior to introducing the first Exchange 2013 server. You can do this one of two ways:

  1. Within the Exchange Management Console (EMC), navigate to Organization Configuration –> Mailbox –> Database Management –> Mailbox Database Properties –> Client Settings.

    Figure 2: Modifying the default Offline Address Book at the database level in the EMC

  2. Alternatively, if you have many mailbox databases to update, the following Exchange Management Shell command can be used to view all mailbox databases without a default OAB explicitly set on them. If you have both Exchange 2007 and Exchange 2010 deployed on-premises then you will have to run the following commands using the respective Exchange Management Shell version as the Get/Set-MailboxDatabase commands are version specific.

    Get-MailboxDatabase | Where {$_.OfflineAddressBook -eq $Null} | FT Name,OfflineAddressBook -AutoSize

    If no values are returned then you are already prepared. However, if you need to configure some databases, then this next command will find all mailbox databases in an Exchange 2007 or Exchange 2010 environment with no default OAB defined at the database level, and it will set it to the current default OAB in the org.

    Get-MailboxDatabase | Where {$_.OfflineAddressBook -eq $Null} | Set-MailboxDatabase -OfflineAddressBook (Get-OfflineAddressBook | Where {$_.IsDefault -eq $True})

    To confirm all Exchange 2007/2010 mailbox databases now have a defined default OAB, re-run the first command. This time it should return no entries.

Server Deployment

Once the preparatory steps are completed, you can then deploy CU1 and start your coexistence journey. If this is your first Exchange 2013 server deployment, you will need to deploy both an Exchange 2013 Client Access Server and an Exchange 2013 Mailbox Server into the organization. As explained in Exchange 2013 Client Access Server Role, CAS 2013 is simply an authentication and proxy/redirection server; all data processing (including the execution of remote PowerShell cmdlets) occurs on the Mailbox server. You can either deploy a multi-role server or each role separately (just remember if you deploy them separately, you cannot manage the Exchange 2013 environment until you install both roles).

If you already deployed Exchange 2013 RTM code and want to upgrade to CU1, you will run setup.exe /m:upgrade /IAcceptExchangeServerLicenseTerms from a command line after completing the Active Directory preparatory steps or run through the GUI installer. Deploying future cumulative updates will operate in the same manner.

Note: Unlike previous versions, in Exchange 2013, you cannot uninstall a single role from a multi-role server. For example, if you deploy the CAS and MBX roles on a single machine, you cannot later execute setup to remove the CAS role; you can only uninstall all server roles.

Mailbox Sizes in Exchange Server 2013

As you start migrating your mailboxes to Exchange 2013, one thing you may notice is that your mailboxes appear to be larger post move.

As you can imagine, with hosting millions of mailboxes in Office 365, accurate storage reporting is essential, just like in your on-premises deployments. One of the learnings that we accrued into the on-premises product is ensuring that the mailbox usage statistics are more closely aligned with the capacity usage within the Mailbox database. The impact of reporting space more accurately means that mailbox quota limits may need to be adjusted prior to the mailbox move so that users are not locked out of their mailbox during the migration process.

Our improved space calculations may result in a mailbox’s reported size increasing on average of 30% when the mailbox is moved from a legacy version of Exchange to Exchange 2013. For example, if a mailbox is reported as 10GB in size on Exchange Server 2010, then when the mailbox is moved to Exchange 2013, it may be reported as 13GB. This does not mean that migrating to Exchange 2013 will increase your capacity footprint by 30% per mailbox; it only means that the statistics are including more data about the space the mailbox consumes. 30% is an average value, based on what we have experienced in Exchange Online. Customers with pilot mailboxes should determine what their own average increase value may be as some environments may see higher or lower values depending on the most prevalent type of email within their mailboxes. Again, this does not mean there will be an increase in the size of the database file on disk; only the attribution of space to each mailbox will increase.

New Functionality Included in Cumulative Update 1

Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 includes a number of bug fixes and enhancements over the RTM release of Exchange 2013. Some of the more notable enhancements are identified below.

Address Book Policies

As discussed recently, an Address Book Policy Routing Agent has been included in Exchange 2013 RTM CU1. For all the juicy details, see Address Book Policies, Jamba Jokes and Secret Agents.

Groups can once again manage groups!

In Exchange 2010 you could not use a group as an owner for another group for membership management. Instead you had to deploy explicit permissions on groups or use a script as a workaround.

Since Exchange 2010’s release both Microsoft Support and the Exchange Product Group received resounding feedback on the need for this capability. The good news is that with Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 groups can once again be owners of groups for membership management.

Public Folder Favorites Access through Outlook Web App

In Exchange Server 2013 RTM there was no way to access Public Folder content through Outlook Web App. In CU1 you will now have access to Public Folders you have added as favorites via your favorites menu either in Outlook or Outlook Web App. However, this access is limited to Public Folders stored on Exchange Server 2013.

Figure 3: Adding a Public Folder as a favorite in Outlook Web App in Exchange Server 2013 RTM CU1

Remember, you cannot start creating Public Folders on Exchange Server 2013 until all users have been migrated to Exchange Server 2013. For how to migrate from legacy Public Folders to Exchange Server 2013 Public Folders, see Migrate Public Folders to Exchange 2013 From Previous Versions.

Exchange Admin Center Enhancements

The Exchange Admin Center (EAC) has been enhanced and now includes Unified Messaging management, improvements in the migration UI allowing more migration options reducing the gap between PowerShell and the UI, and general overall improvements in the user experience for consistency and simplification based on customer feedback.

High Availability and Monitoring Enhancements

There are have been several enhancements in the high availability and Managed Availability space. In particular:

  • The Best Copy Selection algorithm now honors MaximumActiveDatabases.
  • Auto-reseed now supports disks that have Bitlocker encryption.
  • Many probes, monitors, and responders have been updated and improved over the RTM release.
  • Get-HealthReport cmdlet has been streamlined and its performance has been optimized.
  • Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 will support the Exchange Server 2013 Management Pack for System Center Operations Manager (SCOM); this management pack will be available at a later date. This management pack is supported on SCOM 2007 R2 and SCOM 2012.

On behalf of the Exchange Product Group, thanks again for your continued support and patience, and please keep the feedback coming.

Exchange Team


Comments (136)
  1. Shawn Harry says:

    Whoa big download! In before anyone else!!

  2. Nice work, team!  Looking forward to booking some of these upgrade engagements now.  #IamMEC

  3. KK says:

    Welcome CU1….Thanks Exchange team!!

  4. Thomas Stensitzki (MCM MCSM) says:

    Good news. You finally made it.

  5. Charles Derber says:

    Co-existence finally its cool – Thanks for this one :)

  6. Right on time as promised. Kudos to the Exchange Team !!!

    Let the Deployments BEGIN!!!

  7. Entegy says:

    Could the file name of the download be a little more descriptive? I know we can change it manually of course, but downloading "Exchange-x64.exe" seems a little too… generic.

  8. Great work, thanks Exchange team.

  9. says:

    Great work!!!

  10. Roberto Oviedo says:

    Thanks Exchange Team!!!

  11. Serkan Varoğlu says:

    Nice work Exchange Team!

  12. DavidJCarr says:

    Finally it is here! Thank you Microsoft.

  13. charlie says:

    How can we tell which version this is? The file just shows "Exchange-x64.exe". Are all CU updates going to just have the EXE and we'll need to determine versioning by date?

    Other than that, THANK YOU!

  14. Flood gates are open for Deployments/Migrations. At least the first set. There will be another when SP1 comes out.

  15. bill says:

    Is there an RSS feed for KB articles for Exchange 2013?…/default.aspx  I don’t see one listed there?

  16. says:

    Great work, Exchange team! :-)

  17. MichaelVH says:

    Great work, all! Looking forward to a lot of deployments ;-)

  18. says:

    Thanks for the update!  The release notes hit a few of the high points but is there a bug fix list anywhere?

  19. Be aware, Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 setup stops the transport service during the prerequisite check on upgrades from RTM.  See…/exchange-2013-rtm-cu1-stops-transport.html

  20. Patel says:

    Thanks Exchange Team, your world-wide Exchange On-Premises customers are happy now. And they can upgrade from Ex 2007 or Ex 2010 to Exchange 2013 On-Premises now :-)

  21. lee says:

    As an Exchange On-Premises customer, this is a great news.

    We look forward to upgrading to Exchange 2013 On-Premises.

  22. @Entegy & @Charlie – thanks for the feedback, we will consider a better naming convention moving forward with future cumulative update releases.


  23. Chris says:

    Delivered and packaged … nice work Team Exchange!

    … only leaves one item for me – MAPI/CDO for Ex2013 for Doc level protection.

  24. Vince says:

    For a new deployment do I need to download and install the RTM version first and upgrade or can I just use this download to install 2013? The version showing up in my MSDN is still the RTM version.

  25. @Vince, as mentioned in the blog CUs are full builds so you can start right with this build. No need to prepare & install RTM and then upgrade to RTM CU1. You can start right with the CU1 bits.

  26. Frank says:

    I'm getting performance counters errors after installing. Errors like this:

    Performance counter updating error. Counter name is Current Connected Sessions, category name is MSExchangeRemotePowershell. Optional code: 3. Exception: The exception thrown is : System.InvalidOperationException: The requested Performance Counter is not a custom counter, it has to be initialized as ReadOnly.

      at System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter.InitializeImpl()

      at System.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounter.get_RawValue()

      at Microsoft.Exchange.Diagnostics.ExPerformanceCounter.set_RawValue(Int64 value)

    Last worker process info : System.ArgumentException: Process with an Id of 12248 is not running.

      at System.Diagnostics.Process.GetProcessById(Int32 processId)

      at Microsoft.Exchange.Diagnostics.ExPerformanceCounter.GetLastWorkerProcessInfo()

    Processes running while Performance counter failed to update:

    <process list>

    Performance Counters Layout information: FileMappingNotFoundException for category MSExchangeRemotePowershell : Microsoft.Exchange.Diagnostics.FileMappingNotFoundException: Cound not open File mapping for name Globalnetfxcustomperfcounters.1.0msexchangeremotepowershell. Error Details: 2

      at Microsoft.Exchange.Diagnostics.FileMapping.OpenFileMapping(String name, Boolean writable)

      at Microsoft.Exchange.Diagnostics.PerformanceCounterMemoryMappedFile.Initialize(String fileMappingName, Boolean writable)

      at Microsoft.Exchange.Diagnostics.ExPerformanceCounter.GetAllInstancesLayout(String categoryName)

  27. Exchange Blogger says:

    Congrats to the team.  Excited to see this work!

  28. Vince says:

    Thanks Brian, just was a little confused since the original RTM file is almost 4gb and the new update was only 1.3gb

  29. says:

    Thumbs up!

  30. Ricobert says:

    CU1 installation has broken the lync2013 owa integration :-(

  31. John says:

    World-Wide Exchange On-Premises customers get ready to upgrade from Ex 2007 or Ex 2010.

    We are planning it now :-) Thanks Exchange Team.

  32. Great work everyone! It was worth the wait.

  33. EDDIE says:

    Sorted it. It takes 2 x reboots of the CAS after install.

  34. pesospesos says:

    A little confused about the OAB mention above.  We have multiple OABs, each attached to their respective ABPs.  How will these be affected by the new 2013 default OAB?  What is the timeframe for a fix for the ABP/room mbx issue highlighted in the release notes?

  35. Tirelibirefe says:


    I had been struggling with too many problems previous release for a few days.

    Today I downloaded, installed and tested, that one is working. Good job guys!

    Please don't release again before test a software properly like in previous release…

  36. says:

    No Sender Based routing?

  37. good.. at-last cu1 came out…

  38. Petri X says:

    Or shall we say, finally E2013 RTM is out ;-)

    Great work team! Hope all goes fine now….

  39. SteveT says:

    Shame the TechNet documentation isn’t updated to reflect CU1 coexistence with Exchange 2010.…/bb124350(v=exchg.150).aspx

    Any ideas when TechNet will be updated? Otherwise great job.

  40. And Still No Upgrade Guidance says:

    When will we see the Technet documentation upgraded to reflect co-existence and upgrade scenarios? Until we have that, CU1 is not much help.

  41. @SteveT & @And Still No Upgrade Guidance  – TechNet content refresh will go live later today.


  42. Vegas says:

    Looking for some guidance on how to properly redirect OWA from HTTP to HTTPS. I see new VDirs, so not sure exactly how to set this. Any documentation on how to do this properly with 2013 now? Very glad to see this CU1 released. Good job.

  43. Federico says:

    After Exchange 2013 CU1 I cannot move mailbox from Exchange 2013 CU1 to Exchange 2010. Error is "stalledduetomailboxlock" – any suggestion. How can I contact technical team Exchange assistance by email or phone?

  44. Doug says:

    NICE – Now on to migrating folks from 2007/2010 to 2013!

  45. bcehr says:

    FYI – Documentation is up!  Thanks MS!

  46. Philip Elder says:

    We just finished a CU1 deploy at a greenfield site (sole Exchange 2013 RTM).

    Happy to report that once we figured out the prerequisites needed on Server 2012, running the AD prep steps, and then CU1 itself that our Exchange 2013 RTM to CU1 update was successful.

    We are now getting some weirdness in the Event Logs such as service failure and restart attempts with (service already started) on MS Exchange RPC Client Access Service. Exchange Search Service seems to be crashing, and then we are getting MSExchangeFASTSearch exception errors.

    While the above seems to have been introduced with CU1, the fact that OWA now performs a LOT better than before and MIME based PDF attachments via copiers are no longer killed has brought some happiness to our client! :)


  47. DavidJCarr says:

    All we need now is the 2013 Storage Calculator.

  48. shane says:

    I have installed SP3 and CU1, and when I do a Get-ExchangeServer on my 2013 server, it shows both my 2010 and 2013 servers.  But, when I do Get-ExchangeServer on my 2010 server, it only shows my 2010 server.

    Is that normal?

  49. Steve says:

    @ MSFT

    Thanks for the new technet documentation

    In the "How do you know this worked" in the AD preparation, I can't find anywhere in the documentation the values for CU1.

    For example, msExchProductID I have 15.00.620.029 but the documentation has 15.00.526.032 which I assume is still for the original release.  And so on for the other checks.

    I'm pretty sure I'm good to go but it would be nice to have the corresponding CU1 checks documented, unless I'm missing something…

  50. says:

    I started migrating the mailboxes from Exchange 2010 and hit a snag when there is no option to move resource mailboxes in EAC. Do those need to be moved using EMS? I may be bad at reading the TechNet manuals or that part may be missing from the move mailboxes section there. Also was wondering if there was a document describing removing the last Exchange 2010 server from the environment after deploying Exchange 2013, like change the OAB generation servers, remove connectors and what not?

  51. David Strome says:

    Steve – you're right, that topic needs to be updated for CU1. We'll get on that right away. Thanks for catching this. If I'm able to, I'll post the relevant info in a follow up comment while we're waiting for the topic to update.

  52. JasonG says:

    Exchange 2010 Edge Servers seem to still be blocking Exchange 2013 installs with the "must upgrade to SP3" error even though SP3 is installed, read on TN forums it's due to edge servers not updating version in AD, when is that going to get fixed?

  53. lars says:


    thanks for CU1!

    Can you please publish the slides of ignite webcast (link mentioned in webcast is no more available)?

    Thanks in advance


  54. Well, this CU1 setup has been a f…. nightmare! On one exchange server it failed at first because I had set the powershell execution policy through GPO. If you do, setup will not only fail, but it will if run again constantly deactivate all exchange related services and then fail when it tries restarting them.

    Still trying to install on the second exchange server. I get this:

       Mailbox role: Client Access service                       FAILED

        The following error was generated when "$error.Clear();

           Start-SetupProcess -Name "iisreset" -Args "/noforce /timeout:120"

    " was run: "Process execution failed with exit code 1052.".

    The Exchange Server setup operation didn't complete. More details can be found

    in ExchangeSetup.log located in the <SystemDrive>:ExchangeSetupLogs folder.

    How about some more quality out of Redmond? Thank you!!

  55. @JasonG, that is normal behavior for an Edge Transport server.  Edge does not reach back into the org's internal AD configuration partition where the server metadata is stored. I beleive we mentioned this during the Ignite Webcast on coexistence/deployment towards the beginning of this post, but all you need to do is re-do the Edge Subscription which will bump the version #s to match what Edge currently has installed. Once you see 14.3.x in your server list the 2013 setup will be unblocked.

  56. BS says:

    More problems. Now the search service is throwing errors. I am sick and tired of this new Exchange BS. We still cannot even get Exchange out of testing. complete and total BS here.

  57. If you have the RTM version of Exchange 2013 and you are upgrading to CU1 you may run into an issue with the UCMA 4.0 not being the correct version.  Originally the UCMA 4.0 version was a 'Preview' version (5.0.8132.0) which was downloaded from…/UcmaRuntimeSetup.exe.  Now the CU1 requirements looks like it has the same UCMA 4.0 component listed as a requirement, but the download is located at…/UcmaRuntimeSetup.exe.  The version of this UCMA is now 5.0.8308.0.  It would be nice if there was some reference on this post or the Release Notes that this is something to be aware of.  Thanks.

  58. WARNING: Exchange 2013 RTM CU1 changed the behavior on where MonitoringMailboxes (HealthMailbox<Guid>) are created. In RTM, they were created in the default container for the Root Domain (usually, in the "Users" container). In CU1 they are created in the "Exchange System Objects/Monitoring Mailboxes" container.

    This causes an issue when removing Mailbox Databases: when a HealthMailbox connects to ActiveSync to test searchive health, a subcontainer is created for their pseudo-ActiveSync Device. When removing a Mailbox Database, the Exchange Trusted Subsystem attempt to delete the mailbox, but fails. This is because the Exchange Trusted Subsystem DO NOT have the "Delete Subtree" permissions in this container/user objects.This causes the Cmdlet to issue a warning that the Mailbox Couldn't be deleted.


    One possible resolution (I haven't tested yet) is to grand the DeleteSubTree permission to the ETS group on the Monitoring Mailboxes container and apply to user/inetOrgPerson objects.

  59. Update on the previous warning: actually, this is the "Exchange Servers" group which has an explicit DENY on the "Exchange System Objects" container for the "DeleteSubTree" permission. Since Exchange Servers belong to that group, they are indeed prevented to delete objects when they have a subobject (DeleteTree() method in ADSI). So adding permissions for the ETS group is useless unless permissions are EXPLICITELY GRANTED on each HealthMailbox<Guid> object, or if the explicit deny is removed from the "Exchange System Objects" container…

  60. @JAUCG: you shouldn't have installed UCMA 4.0 Preview at first. UCMA 4.0 RTM has shipped the same date as Lync 2013 and this is the version that had to be used, even in Exchange 2013 RTM… :p

  61. @Benoit Boudeville

    The download link for UCMA Preview was the one provided by the requirements page of Exchange 2013 RTM at the time of its release.  It was not listed as a preview version, I only noticed this when I was reviewing registry entries after CU1 hiccup'd on the UCMA version.

  62. David Strome says:

    @Steve and others – here are the values you can use to validate successful preparation of Active Directory. I'm working to get this information updated in the topic ASAP.

    In the Configuration naming context, verify that the msExchProductId property in the CN=<your organization>,CN=Microsoft Exchange,CN=Services,CN=Configuration,DC=<domain> container is set to 15.00.620.029.

    Note: If the msExchProductId property is set to 15.00.620.029, Active Directory has been successfully prepared. You don’t need to check any of remaining values in this list. The information below is for information purposes only and for those who separate the PrepareSchema and PrepareAD steps.

    In the Schema naming context, verify that the rangeUpper property on ms-Exch-Schema-Verision-Pt is set to 15254.

    In the Configuration naming context, verify that the objectVersion property in the CN=<your organization>,CN=Microsoft Exchange,CN=Services,CN=Configuration,DC=<domain> container is set to 15614.

    In the Default naming context, verify that the objectVersion property in the Microsoft Exchange System Objects container under DC=<root domain is set to 13236.

  63. Mo.Ma. says:

    I have deployed 2 pilots for coexistence with Exchange 2007 and 1 Production environment in progress. I have the following problems:

    1. In production environment, once mailboxes are moved from Exchange 2007 to Exchange 2013, outlook 2007 clients cannot connect and always keep asking password (same behaviour that I had on coexistence from ex2007 and ex2013 RTM). In pilot environments I don't have this problem. Configuration of Outlook Anywhere and Autodiscovery as well as Virtual Directories and Certificates are identical and they are done according documentation with CU1.

    2. Once mailboxes are moved from Exchange 2007 to Exchange 2013, mailboxes cannot be moved back to Exchange 2007. The migration task starts and then shows "total mailbox 0, synced 0, finalized 0, failed 0" and no error in return.

    Any ideas?

  64. @Mo.Ma., please check what version of Outlook 2007 you are running. The minimum supported Outlook 2007 version for Exchange 2013 is "2007 SP3 + the november 2012 Public Update" or later. This would be version 12.0.6665.5000 or higher if you look at Outlook.exe's version through Windows Explorer. For Outlook 2010 the minimum is "2010 SP1 + November 2012 Public Update" which is version 14.0.6126.5000 or higher.

  65. A general comment to everyone. We also watch the Exchange Server Forums at…/exchangeserver and this is often a much easier location to help work through things given the better interface the forums have for interaction with each other. Hope to see you there. :)

  66. Mo.Ma. says:

    @Brian. Thanks for the suggestion, I will folloup on forums. Just for information for other people I think we Isolated the problem, but I am working with Microsoft Support to better understand.

    Actually we tested Outlook 2007 SP3 with Outlook.exe newest version 12.0.6668.5000 (updated today with a Windows Update on the computers).

    This version DOES NOT WORK either with NTLM or BASIC authentication of Outlook Anywhere.

    Older version 12.0.6607.1000 works perfectly with either NTLM and BASIC…. pretty strange huh? :-)

  67. @Mo.Ma., shoot me the case # if you can as I'd be interested in the outcome; brian dot day at microsoft dot com

  68. I am having two issues. First, some Outlook 2007 clients do not appear to work correctly. It appears to be version related. The second issue is that our backups are now out of control. Updating to cu1 appears to have easily made our backups 10x bigger. We are working with PSS now before we move the users onto the server.

  69. Rob says:

    I updated a single server running Exchange 2013 RTM last night without issue; however, I am now finding OWA is  very flakey.  When I select an existing message I see this: "Error: Your request can't be completed right now. Please try again later." in the message body.  Eventually the message body will display but this is quite irritating.  I'll have to take a look on the server and see what errors (if any) are happening there.  When I create a new message I may also get this error when I click Send".


  70. CU1 broke the ability to use pipelineing with Set-ServerComponentState.

    Typically if $Servers is a list of server objects (retrieve with Get-ExchangeServer) and I do $Servers | Set-ServerComponentState -Component foo -State bar -Requester Maintenance, then Cmdlet throws an Exception (object reference not set to an object). When using the same command using the -Identity parameter (eg: in a foreach) either using the "Name" or "Fqdn" property, this works as a workaround…

  71. jjj says:

    This update does not recognize disabled owa access. If I go into the eac and disable owa, the user still has access. Owa is really flakey inngeneral and public folder data is not working right either. What a mess exchange has become.

  72. Martin says:

    There is a massive DPM bug in this release. White space is being flagged as changed data and URL pilot backup system just crashed due to completely running out of space. Restores may not work right either.we cannot move forward with this version unless this is solved.

    What is the status of a workaround or fix?

  73. Nino Bilic says:

    @Jjj – indeed, we are aware of this problem. Please see this KB article:…/2835562

  74. Can someone explain the new "/mapi" WebService (MapiHttpHandler and NspiHttpHandler) ? what use? is it to replace the Ex2010's RCA/AB ?

  75. @Benoit, that is reserved for internal MS testing at this time and is not currently used by on-premises Exchange.

  76. @Brian: thanks for the info :p

    Other feedback on CU1: while I could upgrade several servers in a pre-prod forest (before going in live production later) without any issue (besides some new minor bugs introducted in CU1 :P) I had some issues with my lab where the EWS virtual directory for the Exchange Back End web site was present in AD but not in IIS !!!

    Therefore, CU1 B2B upgrade failed miserably.

    Workaround: do a "repair" of the EWS virtual directory. Eg from a standard shell on the server:

    Add-PSSnapin -Name Microsoft.Exchange.Management.PowerShell.E2010

    $BackEndSiteName = "Exchange Back End"

    Get-WebServicesVirtualDirectory -Server $env:COMPUTERNAME -ShowBackEndVirtualDirectories -ADPropertiesOnly |? { $_.Name.Contains($BackEndSiteName) } | Remove-WebServicesVirtualDirectory -Confirm:$false

    New-WebServicesVirtualDirectory -Server $env:COMPUTERNAME -WebSiteName $BackEndSiteName -Role Mailbox -WindowsAuthentication:$true -WSSecurityAuthentication:$true -GzipLevel High

    After recreating the EWS VDir in IIS re-run the Exchange setup in upgrade mode and voila !

  77. Eliyahu Kassorla says:

    Wow. This release is terrible. Destroyed two Client Access servers in a straight upgrade, and ate up hours of work in wiping the servers clean after the install was left in such an inconsistent state. Worst: clean install – authentication problems. I'd rather use RTM and skip this release.

  78. says:


    I have noticed that there is an upgrade option for the unattend.   with this option am I able to do an inplace upgrade from exchange 2010 Sp3 to Exchange 2013?   if not is there a way to other than having to install the new exchange on a completely new server, migrate all mailboxes to that and decom the exchange 2010 server.


  79. @manf0001, setup /m:upgrade for CU1 is only for upgrading from 2013 RTM. Later on when CU2 ships that mode could be used to upgrade from RTM or CU1. You cannot in-place upgrade from an earlier version of Exchange.

  80. Bugs O. Galore says:

    Another bugy release. I know this was delayed, but really it should have been delayed another month at least. We had one server where, as Benoit suggests in this thread, had to have the entire EWS rebuilt. Now the latest is we are waiting on a post CU1 patch in order to backup the system. For some reason the backups are no longer working in this release, but they were in the rtm. OWA seems flakey and public folder support really doesn't work. Sharepoint integration for discovery also doesn't seem to work.

    Total failure as far as I'm concerned. Exchange people have spent way too much time worrying about the cloud offerings and it shows. The on-premise version of Exchange, as it stands now, is the buggyst version of Exchange I've ever tried to use.

    My only question is that will exchange finally get it right with cu2 or do we have to start looking at some other options here?

  81. Soy says:

    Is it not possible to upgrade a server that is 2010 SP3 to 2013 CU1 using the above installer? I am getting a disaster recovery mode error of some sort in my lab. It tells me to use /m:RecoverServer. when I run that I get the error:

    setup /m:RecoverServer /IAcceptExchangeServerLicenseTerms

    Welcome to Microsoft Exchange Server 2013 Cumulative Update 1 Unattended Setup

    Setup checks failed: Earlier versions of the server roles that are installed

    were detected.

  82. Nino Bilic says:

    @Soy – That is correct; we have not supported "between version" upgrades with Exchange for a while now. You cannot in-place upgrade from any version of Exchange 2010 to any version of Exchange 2013. What you should do is install into the same org and then move the mailboxes over.

  83. says:

    Is there a process for rolling back CU1?  Installed it on a production server and install fails half way through and I get this:

    "Failure configuring SearchFoundation through installconfig.ps1 – Error occurred while configuring Search Foundation for Exchange.System.TimeoutException: Timed out waiting for Admin node to be up and running at Microsoft.Ceres.Exchange.PostSetup.DeploymentManager.WaitForAdminNode(String hostControllerNetTcpWcfUrl) at Microsoft.Ceres.Exchange.PostSetup.DeploymentManager.Install(String installDirectory, String dataDirectoryPath, Int32 basePort, String logFile, Boolean singleNode, String systemName, Boolean attachedMode)

  84. says:

    @Brian Day and Nino Bilic,   is there a reason why there is no inplace upgrade option for exchange?  it seems like a lot of work to install a new version of exchange on a different server and move the mail boxes over.  Would there be an option at a future date,

    Also is there a exchange feature request web page, where we can suggest features that we would like to see in upcoming releases?


  85. Bharat Suneja [MSFT] says:

    @manf0001: You can email your feature requests or other feedback to exwish at Microsoft dot com.

  86. reggie2 says:

    What are the recommended procedures for uninstalling cu1? We are not having good success and would like to uninstall cu1 and wait until cu2 or sp1. Thank you.

  87. @Reggie: given that CU's are now full releases and "Builg-to-Build Upgrades", there's no option to remove CU's, the only option is to uninstall everything and reinstall a previous build. It makes rollback very difficult or even nearly impossible for smallest organizations. Typically one clean approach would be to install a new server (or multiple servers if neeeded) on RTM side by side, move services/config and mailboxes from previos DBs to the new ones… I must admit this is unfair :(

  88. reggie2 says:

    So there is no way to uninstall an update, we can't in-place upgrade anything, and support is only good for the current and one single cu back?. Sorry, I have to say that was a very, very poor design decision. This is going to make my job much harder. Well, now I'm off to install a brand new Exchange server, go through all the configuration, migrate all my mailboxes to it, and then decommission the original one. Hours of work because you can't rollback an update. Rolling back updates is something we've been able to do for the past 20 years, so pardon me if I say this is a surprising change and degraded feature-set we've come to expect over the years.

  89. Where is Sent Items Management?  This feature was put into Exchange 2010 SP3 formally, but forgotten in Exchange 2010 RTM CU1?  How did that one get past QA?  Imagine telling your customer that yes, you have this great feature in SP3 and once we install SP3 you will be able to upgrade to 2013.  However, if you go to Exchange 2013, you will lose this same great feature.  

    While I understand that Sent Items Management is not a game changer or a show stopper of a feature, it still makes the point that CU1 still seems rushed even with the late release date.

    I would also like to add that according to the EAC, when I add a new database I need to restart the Information Store service on the server.

  90. GE Server says:

    1. How do I get past the 50 database limit? In Exchange 2010 you could create up to 100 databases. Now with the new improved Exchange 2013 engine we can only have 50? So, what's the trick to raising this limit?

    2. How do we get team mailboxes working from an owa client?

    3. How can we view more than about 20 folders in offline mode? We have execs with hundreds of folders and OWA offline mode is not going to work unless we can access all folders offline. How can we adjust the available folders to sync offline?

    4. When are you going to replace all the neat troubleshooting tools that were in the Exchange 2010 toolbox and add them into the EAC?


  91. GE Server says:

    How do we get around this "by design" limitation?…/exchange-2013-reduces-number-mounted-databases-50

    This means that Exchange 2013 is only capable of supporting HALF what Exchange 2010 was capable of? That's nuts. Exchange 2013 should be like 4x as many databases. And in addition, we now have to stop all databases just to add a single database?

    Not sure this is progress by any means.

  92. The cow says moo says:

    Woah!!! What did I just read? 2013 has a 50 database limit now? When did this change?

    At our company we have six Exchange 2010 servers. Due to RPO and RTO requirements, we have to create  multiple D.A.G. with many databases. We're maxed right up with the primary databases, secondary copies, and a third copy as well. If the 50 GB database limit is true, then we can not upgrade to 2013 because it would mean we'd have to deploy 12 Exchange servers to do the same task. This also means that if we want a 3-copy DAG solution, we can't deploy over 16 primary databases on a single Exchange 2013 server.

    I had no idea Exchange 2013 was so limited. Is this really true? Is there a workaround or is there an expectation in the next service pack that this limit will be raised?

  93. Korbyn says:

    Haven't stuck my oar out here for a while:

    A roll back plan is important in any upgrade/update plan, critical to many clients in fact.  Considering the numerous issues in E2010 HFRU's, being able to back out was a saving grace many a time for many of my clients.  Hopefully you'll see the light and common sense going forward to switch back.  I couldn't care less about spending some extra time installing a rollup after a new installation, but now you're breaking your own MOF rules for Operation Management and patch management. 15 years of managing exchange with many heated discussions with engineers, but I'm really truly disappointed and dismayed with this course.  I see why you might like this idea, I see the benefits I do, but this is poor direction to go.

  94. Richard Ewins says:

    Korbin – you are EXACTLY correct.

    I remember the old WOSSA (Windows Operating Systems and Services Architecture) and Architecture exams…waaaay back in the day when I was passing the MCSD track for VB5. Microsoft has thrown out a number of their own previous interface recommendations that were there for a very good reason!

    It is simply astonishing to me that in the year 2013 we're having conversations about products that can't co-exist with previous versions, don't provide any method of rollbacks, and can't be upgraded in-place. I'm speechless honestly. I really speaks volumes to the state of things at Microsoft.

  95. Nino Bilic says:

    @manf0001 – the reason why there is no in-place upgrade is that it is super-complex. In last several versions of Exchange, we have been making significant changes to database engine for example (amongst other things), rewriting significant parts of Exchange into managed code etc. It would be a very large work to enable in-place upgrades. Having been there though in the past, we have learned that despite our best efforts, if in-place upgrades go wrong, the recovery is much more painful than having to move the mailbox back, as the server can be in a semi-installed state. Lessons we learned in support showed us that it is not necessarily something that does anyone any favors…

  96. says:

    Nino Bilic:  I completely agree and understand why Microsoft abandoned In-place version upgrades, it has always made a lot of sense to move to new gear when you upgrade the messaging system.  I've been working with Microsoft messaging products since Courier days and there were times when the upgrade in place worked and then after a while it didn't make any sense.  HOWEVER, this new "All In" update process might equates to an In-Place ugprade, which is mystifying.  There is no way to roll back, it either works or it doesn't work.  The number of issues with CU1 are incredible and you've left customers with no easy way to roll back.  It is illogical and off the mark.  Worse, right now there doesn't seem to be any acknowlegement of these issues and "we're on it" and "we'll keep you posted" with an ETA on fixes.


  97. M Turner (TA) says:

    "The number of issues with CU1 are incredible"

    amen brother. +1

  98. Modern? I dont think so! says:

    Couldn’t disagree more!

    The whole notion about "modern public folder" and "polished OWA" is just nonsense, respectfully.

    1. OWA display is simply awful!

    2. ZERO taste in color options. (The entire universe is about options, not limitations!)

    3. The text is hard to see even with 20/20 vision

    4. The interface is very unpleasant.

    5. Free email providers offer far more aesthetics and flexibility than OWA with Exchange 2013

    6. In OWA, the address list is hard to find

    7. Managing Public Folders is not an option in OWA. It was fine in 2010 but useless in 2013. Someone had to break it!

    8. If User A creates a Public Folder (PF) using Outlook 2010 client, that A does not (NOT) see that PF in OWA. Unless user A goes to subscribe that PF.  The situation is not funny when we are talking about hundreds of PFs.

    9. In MAC, EVERY PF, had to be subscribed in Outlook. Now the same is true on OWA!

    10. Speaking of MAC, they are going beyond retina display while OWA is going the other way!

    11. What's wrong with selecting a group of users and enabling their email address? You can’t multi select users to mail-enable with highly polished Exchange 2013!

    12. The Exchange Admin Center web should reflect EAC, not ECP (Exchange Control Panel)

    13. So much empty space on EAC, but there is no space to add additional properties for users. How does that make sense?

  99. Slippery Lobster says:

    What is everyone using for sizing?  What is the suggested ration of CAS to MBX for Exchange 2013?

  100. Some man dude who watches game of thrones every night says:

    @Modern? I dont think so!:

    The whole Office 2013 color scheme is a tragedy. Huge amounts of screen space wasted by bright white. 90% of some screens are just a wasteland of white screaming into your brain and giving you a headache. OWA2013 is the same way, and you are correct, there are many problems. Public Folders are broken, plain and simple. Shared mailboxes don't even work at all, so you can just throw that feature right out of your current plans. Even the OWA offline mode is a joke as it will only sync 20 folders and no more. If you look on the Technet forums you will see hundreds and hundreds of complaints about this same thing.

    It's a cruel joke that is being played on us Exchange Administrators, that's for sure. Release products WAY before they are ready and spend the next year patching things up so we can finally have a RTM-capable experience.

    Surely even the Microsoft team can see all the deficiencies in their product. Even with CU1.

  101. MichaelMann says:

    I see a lot of valid potential comparisons between Exchange and the new EA SimCity.

  102. Shah Murad says:

    Definitely a poorly written platform in very many ways!

    I have the feeling that it has VISTA written all over it! Exchange, in the past have been a flagship product by Microsoft and the world class messaging system. But the rush to get this out of coding house so that it is in line with other MS Product release was a poor judgment call by product managers in Exchange Team. We are seriously debating if we should continue on with our existing non-Microsoft email platform.  – Shah

  103. BTaylor-ETR says:

    It's like the Exchange team just let out a big juicy long fart in an elevator and we all have to endure the stench until we finally reach the top floor. The Exchange team then slightly giggles and tries to ignore the stares from the adults in the room.


    Brian Taylor, ETR Services


  104. KillerExchange says:

    Exchange 2013 Address Book Policy Routing Agent Issue with Mailboxes Hidden From the Address Lists

    When the AddressBookPolicyRoutingEnabled attribute is enabled by running Set-TransportConfig -AddressBookPolicyRoutingEnabled $True, I am having an issue with delivery failures for mailboxes that are hidden from the address book. I receive the following
    undeliverable message:

    ‘532 5.3.2 STOREDRV.Deliver; Missing or bad StoreDriver MDB properties’

    If I disable the AddressBookPolicyRoutingEnabled attribute by running Set-TransportConfig -AddressBookPolicyRoutingEnabled $False then emails are successfully delivered to the mailbox that is hidden from the address list.

    I followed the installation instructions here:…/jj907308(v=exchg.150).aspx

    Below is the status of the ABP Routing Agent on my Hub Transport/Mailbox server:

    Enabled: True

    Priority: 5

    TransportAgentFactory: Microsoft.Exchange.Transport.Agent.AddressBookPolicyRoutingAgent.AddressBookPolicyRoutingAgentFactory

    AssemblyPath: C:Program FilesMicrosoftExchange ServerV15TransportRolesagentsAddressBookPolicyRoutingAgentMicrosoft.Exchange.Transport.Agent.AddressBookPolicyRoutingAgent.dll

    Identity: ABP Routing Agent

    IsValid: True

    ObjectState: New

    Has anyone else run into this issue yet?

  105. Greg Taylor [msft] says:

    @ ExchangeKiller – That looks very likely to be a bug. Can you please open a case up with support so they can gather the information to debug.

  106. Graham Ross says:

    My upgrade from 2013RTM to CU1 ran perfectly – a big thumbs up.

    I am disappointed that, in OWA, there appears to be no way to mark email in the public folder as junk – you cannot even move mail from a PF, other than delete mail. I was also expecting more functionality to manage the anti-spam/malware from the ECP to be added. I really think that MSFT need to do more in this area.

  107. hayden says:

    Don't blame the Exchange team. I'm sure they had to release this by a certain date which Microsoft has imposed.

    I think I will skip CU1 until there is a rollup or something similar to fix the bugs. Exchange team, can you confirm if there will be the usual rollups for CU1, or are we waiting for CU2?

  108. JB says:

    "Don't blame the Exchange team. I'm sure they had to release this by a certain date which Microsoft has imposed."

    Imagine releasing a product and knowing that your customers can't install it alongside the previous version. How can anyone overlook critical system functionality? If someone did impose this on the Exchange product group, then they should be canned. No developer would want their product shown in this light. I still feel the state of 13 has currently not caught up to the 10 version. The colors are simply god-awful too.

  109. adham says:

    hi good news

    but i want to download this program how to download?

  110. Mark Berg says:

    Exchange 2013 CU1 Breaks my Transport Agent

    I have a transport agent that works fine with Exchange 2013 RTM, but no longer installs with Exchange 2013 CU1!

    install-transportagent fails with:

    Error: The TransportAgentFactory type "xxxxx.yyyyy" doesn't exist. The TransportAgentFactory type must be the Microsoft .NET class type of the transport agent factory.

    So I rebuilt the agent with the dlls shipped in CU1, and it installed and worked fine!

    I am referring to these dlls of course:



    This is not good enough because I don’t want to redistribute a different agent build for each CU that MS releases.

    Here are the details of my agent:

    * VS 2012 C#

    * .NET Framework 4

    Project References to the MS DLLs are configured with Specific Version = False

  111. Eminenttours says:

    Eminenttours offers you to Discover Amazing Vacationer Destinations in Bangkok Tour Package. Bangkok is a sophisticated town frequented by tourist from all over the globe. It has some of the significant fascination of the nation and so it matters high number of tourist all the year long.  Call us@ +91-9953920605,  9811147548, 9654319636.

    <a href="">Bangkok Tour Package</a>

    <a href="">Tour Packages For Goa</a>

    <a href="">Rajasthan Tour Packages</a>

  112. Sympathize says:


    Welcome to the wonderful world of massive Exchange bugs that 2013 has introduced. Just wait until you discover all the stress inducing changes to OWA. I don't think things are going to stabilize enough to deploy this software until Service Pack 1 is released. CU1 is better, but it's obvious to everyone in the community that this product was released too soon due to having to meet the Windows 8/Office2013 launch schedule. Too many broken and or buggy features to be reliable enough to deploy in production.

  113. Mindaugas says:


    I'm supporting Ex2010SP3 environment with 1500+ GALs. GALs and Address books are segregated using Address Book Policies introduced in 2010SP2. Multi-tenancy hosting guide for 2010SP2 also says that that GAL limit also was lifted by making linked attributes.


    It is no longer necessary to run the makegallinked.exe tool or change the schema definition properties of the GlobalAddressList attribute in Active Directory to enable you to create more than 1000 GALs. Once you reach the default limit of the GlobalAddressList attribute (approximately 1250 with the Windows Server 2008 Active Directory schema) you will receive a warning that the GAL you are attempting to create will only be accessible by users with a mailbox on Exchange 2010 SP2.

    NOTE: It is not supported (nor is it necessary) to run the makegallinked.exe tool or change the schema definition properties of the GlobalAddressList attribute in Active Directory in a new Exchange Server 2010 SP2 installation, you simply need to ensure the Active Directory is operating at the correct forest functional level and you use only the 2010 versions of the New-GlobalAddressList cmdlet.


    And this makes sense.. I still can create GALs in Ex2010 even I'm way above 1250 limit…

    Unfortunately it is not the case with Exchange 2013. I introduced Ex2013 into this organization. installation went smoothly. I have working coexistence. What doesn’t work is GALs.. I CANNOT create any new GALs. I receive weird error:

    WARNING: One or more global address lists were missing from the Active Directory attribute. This is likely caused by using legacy Exchange management tools to create global address lists.

    and it is failing with statement that "One or more attribute entries of the object "CN=Mincrosoft Exchange,CN=…" already exists.

    Looks like Ex2013CU1 "forgot" about removed GAL limitation in Ex2010SP2. It seems that it is missing some GALs (we I have ~300 GALs on top of official 1250 limit) and it cannot create new one because it thinks that it already exists, but it is not..

    Has anyone else ran into this issue. Is there a potential workaround or fix?  Is there quick fix to enable linked attrobute for GlobalAddressList and GLobalAddressList2?

  114. Greg Taylor [msft] says:

    @ Mindaugas  – we have a bug in 2013 new-gal that limits the GALs to 1500 – we have already fixed it and the fix is included in CU2, so until then, you should be able to just use the 2010 new-gal cmdlet, please don't fiddle around in AD trying to change anything, it's the cmdlet logic that broke, not the overall way the feature is supposed to work.

  115. Federico Moschini says:

    Hello, I have an error like the following discussion. I get in touch with Microsoft Support in Italy but they didn't find a bug on the database bug, why ? Anyway I solved as suggested in the forum. I wait for your reply to update Microsoft Support in Italy, thank you. the discussion is here:…/1562fc53-2147-406e-af60-a132948dd421

  116. Shah Murad says:

    Greg Taylor at et all @ MSFT – – I saw a mention of "CU2" in your comment..  Is that going to be out soon?


  117. Greg Taylor [msft] says:

    take a read of…/servicing-exchange-2013.aspx – CU's are going to be quarterly.

  118. says:

    Anyone knows if the Public Folder FIASCO is going to be handled a bit more professionally on CU2? There are more limitations on OWA when it comes to managing (or doing anything for that matter) Public Folders than what can be done on PF using OWA – basically close to nothing!! It was fine on 2010 OWA but totally botched up on 2013.  I guess the developers were in tuned with old mantra – "PFs are gonna go to SharePoint"  

    If the direction is "move to Share Point" then we need to know before we spend more resources on testing 2013.

  119. says:

    As of today, Exchange 2013 Deployment Assistant URL still displays that that upgrading from Exchange 2007 or Exchange 2010 is “COMING SOON!!” This shows that how poorly the internal departments (Exchange Team) are coordinating.

    So far, in my tests, I found no reasons to upgrade due to so many bugs, limitations, poor OWA design, PF management, and performance hits! Now that multiple roles are running on a single MB server, I noticed a major difference between the performance of Exchange 2010 box and Exchange 2013 box. All the updates are cosmetics (with poor ingredients I must add) and not much to gain. Did anyone notice that Exchange 2013 is actually more similar to Exchange 2003? (Including the removal of 0 with 1).

  120. Reynol says:

    I don't want EAC. EAC has way too many limitations and missing features over EMC. To add more pain, now the CU's are going to have to be applied every 3-6 months requiring downtime? We can't even add a database now without stopping and restarting everything.

    Talk about stupid.

  121. James Krueger says:

    I just completed our first client transition to Exchange 2013.  We only coexisted for 36 hours and then successfully removed Exchange 2010.  The AD for the client is mature and is at least 20 years old.  No big issues at all.

  122. Ivan Salvade says:

    You stated in the article :"When you deploy the first Exchange 2013 Mailbox server in an existing Exchange organization, a new default Offline Address Book is created.".

    How is generated this new Default Offline Address Book?  It's an exact copy of the existing Default Offline Address Book found, for example, on a legacy Exchange server 2010, or it's simply a totally new Default Offline Address Book?

    In other words, if I created in Exchange 2010 a Default Offline Address Book customized to contain specific address lists (other than the Dafault GAL), when I install Exchange 2013 how can I migrate that customized Default Offline Address Book to Exchange 2013?

  123. says:

    I am wondering when CU2 is going to come out that will actually stabilize mail flow.  Like many many many others – I have had to set the Hub Transport Service to restart ( which it does about every 4 to 6 hrs a day, every day).  Today mail flow on the SMTP receive connector just decided to up and quit.  after 2 reboots it began working again – but the point is – first a foremost Exchange Servers should be able to Send And Receive Mail – Second – Internal Domain Clients should be able to connect.  Third and last – External OWA / Phone / And RPC.  This new version – when something breaks – everything breaks. In the past at least I NEVER had to worry about the First TWO Primary functions.

    By the Way config was Exchange 2003 – migrated to 2010 – Migrated to 2013 on a Server 2012 box with 12GB Ram Virtualized on Xenserver 6.5

  124. Daniel says:

    Dear Team,

    I have upgraded my enterprise exchange 2013 edition with ure CU1.

    Why the hell I have now AFTER INSTALLING CU1 a STANDARD Version? Is this a Joke?!


  125. Greg Taylor [msft] says:

    Daniel, I can't reproduce this. Can you explain a bit more about what you did and what you saw?

  126. MarkEmery says:

    We are just planning our Exchange Server 21013 migration because there is a opportunity to do it as part of other server upgrades. Nothing i read here fills me with any confidence in the product. The concept and execution of how CU works just sounds brain damaged with so many obvious ways to go horribly wrong i can't imagine how it ever got to see the light of day.

    I too have been using exchange since V4.0 and the starting with 2007 version it has just gone down hill in horrible ways since then and continues to loose some of its best features each edition. Management of exchange is certainly a much greater chore to do basic everyday tasks than ever before. Microsoft clearly have very little idea of how their product is used in the real world and I suspect a very healthy contempt for those of us who are not happy with what we've been lumped with.

    Exchange used to be such a good product, it is barely a shadow of its former self.

  127. Agustín Gallegos says:

    Hi @Brian, there was a question done by @Jjj saying: "This update does not recognize disabled owa access. If I go into the eac and disable owa, the user still has access. Owa is really flakey inngeneral and public folder data is not working right either.
    What a mess exchange has become."

    And you say to check the KB 2835562. I read the article and the workaround suggested is:

    For on-premises Exchange Server

    Use Active Directory Users and Computers to disable mailbox access by removing the user’s ability to log on to the Active Directory environment. To do this, follow these steps:1.Open Active Directory Users and Computers.

    2.Locate the user whose information you want to edit. To do this, use the Find feature. Or, browse to the organizational unit to which the user belongs.

    3.Double-click the user, and then, in the <UserName> Properties dialog box, click the Account tab.

    4.Under Account options, select Account is disabled, and then click OK.

    Is it my bad english or I understood to disable the user account??? I mean, disable the user account? What if the user goes to the office, needs to logon to his machine, needs to logon to Lync or any other service that use authentication?

    (isn’t easier to send the employee on undetermined vacations, delete his user account. When MS decides to release CU2 we call the employee back "hey man, vacations are over, come back to work", and we recreate the account? XD XD)

    Anyways, there are 2 workarounds I see for this situation.

    1. If you have domain-joined ISA or TMG, you can put the users exceptions directly in the OWA publishing rule. Bingo!

    2. The above option will only work for Internet users. Any internal user may browse the OWA site bypassing the Publishing server.

    In this scenario I onced used this feature:

    URL Authorization Feature Requirements (IIS 7)…/cc771315(v=ws.10).aspx

    Create a Deny Rule for URL Authorization (IIS 7)…/cc772441(v=ws.10).aspx

    "Applies To: Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2, Windows Vista

    Create a Deny rule when you want to prevent access to Web content for specific roles, groups, or users. If you want to further restrict the actions a client request can take, you can also specify that the server will only evaluate this rule when the client
    attempts to use certain HTTP verbs—for example, GET or POST."

    As the article says, applies to W2008R2. So I don’t know if this would work in W2012 (which has IIS8). But if you have Ex2013 running under W2008R2, feel free to test!!!

    Honestly, I can’t believe Microsoft recommends to disable the user account! XD


    (sorry for my bad english)

  128. Agustín Gallegos says:

    Hi all. First of all, I'm not a MS employee. Actually, I'm unemployed, and doing some freelance jobs for the past 3 months. I'm just giving my opinion about it.

    Many of the comments I saw in this article, is the complain about not able to perform "in place upgrades", or roll back the CU version.

    This is no new for us guys! ever since Exchange 2003 (released back in 2003), there was no in place upgrade already. Of course Exchange 2003 is 32bits, and Exchange 2007+ are all x64 (Ex2007 x86 was released, but not supported in production environments). So everyone here, working with Exchange 2003, 2007 and 2010, are already used to this situation. why are complaining now? Again, this has been going since 2003. So, again, this is no new for us.

    I agree with all of you saying there is no rollback option. At least in Exchange 2007/2010, the model was: service packs (full builds) and rollup (update builds). Rollups were able to be removed without affecting the whole product. but talking about SPs, it was not possible.

    So saying that I update from Exchange 2010 SP1 to SP2, it is the same situation we have now for Exchange 2013.

    My suggestion here for Exchange 2013, would be that in some way, we could rollback to the previous CU. If I have been installing like 10 CUs, if I want to remove the #10, at least, I should be able to rollback to CU9.

    Anyways, the workaround I see here (and the one I used for Exchange 2007/2010) is, before performing any upgrade, to take a full AD backup, and an Exchange backup (more important DBs and Certificates of the server involved).

    If I was upgrading, Exchange 2010 SP1 to SP2, and something went wrong in the middle, I could expect that:

    .attributes in AD may reflect the exchange server in SP1, and some other attributes in SP2.

    .In the server itselft, some exchange binary files could be SP1, or SP2.

    .same for registry information, some could reflect SP1 settings, some SP2 settings, and the famous "watermarks" in each role.

  129. Agustin Gallegos says:

    (continuing above comment)…

    So, reaching this point, you can:

    1. restore your AD backup. (all attributes, schema changes, and domain permissions in AD should be back to SP1).

    2. then you can just format the server, reset the Computer account, reinstall the box with same name, rejoin to the domain, and install exchange (with SP1 installation files) with the "recoverserver" switch.

    3. After the installation, just restore your DBs, and certificate.

    the server should be, back again, working in SP1.

    You all may think, "something that should take an hour at most, will take me 4 or 5", yes, I agree with you. "this will require a lot of admin interaction, and work with DCs and Exchange", yes, I agree as well. "In large organizations, restoring AD will cause a replication storm", YES! I agree with you again. "what about AD changes that were performed during the upgrade time? if there was any work done in AD, that would be lost by restoring our back!", yes, but be honest with me, many times we upgrade Exchange, we demand a maintenance window, and not much changes are done in AD aside the ones we performed, the the possibility is that there are no other changes done. But…

    Is it a valid workaround? YES it is! is it possible to achieve? yes it is! Are all the procedures in the workaround supported and valid by MS? yes, they are!

    So, I know is not easy, but it is a workaround. At least, in the worst case scenario, you still have a contingency plan with this.

    If you guys have a better workaround, please, share it with us all!!

    So, that's all. And at last but not least, if MS would develop a 100% perfect product, there will be no job for us!!! the ones who offer Services, consulting and support!!! XD XD XD

    (sorry for my bad english again)

  130. says:

    We have canned the Exchange 2013 installation after working with it for couple of months! It had nothing to offer compare to Exchange 2010.  All the initial articles (many are on this page..) about how great Exchange 2013 was, I just realized that those were nothing but sarcasm!

  131. MarkEmery says:

    We found the SCOM 2012 management pack for Exchange 2012 more than doubled the replication traffic to our remote backup site. Do you guys know what you're doing? Evidence of how poorly your product works suggests not.

    Does it make sense to anyone that monitoring the health of the product should add more traffic than 200 active users of the product? Absolutely ridiculous! Needless to say, we can't afford the bandwidth to run the management pack because is it so badly implemented.

  132. MarkEmery says:

    It nice that the group management by groups is back, but is not something to be excited about, it is something to be deeply ashamed was necessary. It proves how profoundly out of touch developers are with how your product is used. The inconvenience and extra management burden has been significant and prolonged. There is no positive spin to be had.

  133. meer says:

    can any one plese send be the complete manual for the  exchange server2013 on my email

Comments are closed.