Will this help?
in [Microsoft Exchange]
|
Prev: Unable to write new message in OWA 2003
Next: Can I hide an attribute of certain users only in the GAL without changing AD ?
From: jbit on 5 Feb 2010 09:14 On Feb 5, 8:28 am, "Mark Arnold [MVP]" <m...(a)mvps.org> wrote: > > Thank you! > > >If you use cached mode for this user, the OST file on his client > >machine will be huge. The OST files are usually about 1.5x the size of > >the mailbox on exchange. Anything over a gig is very susceptible to > >corruption. > > Not true. Not true at all. > > > If his OST file gets corrupted, as soon as he syncs back > >with Exchange, his exchange mailbox will be messed up too and you'll > >be scrambling to recover his back from a backup. > > If the OST is corrupted it won't be openable and the guy will have t > ohave a new one which will initiate a sync back from the server to a > new OST. No backups at all. > > >Have you tried an archiving solution that stubs out his mail? Look at > >Archive Manager (Quest/ScriptLogic) or another product like that. > > You are utterly, totally and utterly wrong. Stubbing is a ridiculous > answer for situations where there are lots of items. A stub to a > message is still a message and whilst you get size reduction benefits > you get no improvement in performance. Stubbing the Exchange 2003 > store in this case is probably the last thing you would do. That's a pretty harsh rebuttal - and does not mesh with my experiences at all. I have had users with oversized OST files that were corrupted and then synched back to the Exchange server and corrupted their mailbox. Corrupted does not necessarily equal won't open. And stubbing will reduce the size of the mailbox - which does improve the performance. Particularly if he's already segmented some of his folders per the other advice offered. We have multiple users with 2-4 gig mailboxes who we've successfully implemented this for because they don't want to delete any of their email. When a user's optimal solution does not include reducing the number of items in the mailbox - we have to work around that parameter. Stubbing is a perrfectly valid option in this scenario. And in my experience, far more successful than caching the box on the user's machine.
From: Jaime on 5 Feb 2010 09:34
Sorry, I guess I was a little unclear. I meant for the user to still keep the archives on the hard drive (for future reference) and burn a copy to DVD in case of some catastrophic drive/system failure. -- James Bart: "According to creationism, there were no cavemen." Homer: "Good riddance! Their drawings sucked and they looked like hippies." "Ed Crowley [MVP]" <curspice(a)nospam.net> wrote in message news:#gr292fpKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > That's not such a good idea. You can't open a PST that is on read-only > media; he'd have to copy it to his hard disk, and that's pretty > inconvenient. > -- > Ed Crowley MVP > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." > . > > "Jaime" <NOSPAMjaimelobo(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:O2OVPtdpKHA.4836(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> If your company has no specific requirements for the retention of all >> those e-mails, why hot have the user archive all the older ones to local >> files on his PC. >> >> He can still have access to them (if ever needed) and he could burn a >> copy to a DVD for backup. >> -- >> James >> Orlando (Goofy says "Hey"), Florida >> >> "ed" <ed(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message >> news:A1923777-761D-4550-9EE8-5869D9F1380C(a)microsoft.com... >>> Hi all, >>> >>> exchange2003 sp2/outlook2003 >>> >>> I have one user that compaints to take longer time to open outlook. he >>> has >>> 120,000 items and 4GB size after our archived system. It seems that he >>> does >>> not want to delete anything from the email. >>> >>> Will cache mode help him? any other suggestions? >>> >>> Thank you! >> > |