Will this help?

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

ed

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!
 
M

Mark Arnold [MVP]

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:41:02 -0800, ed <ed
wrote:


> 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!


The only thing that will help is some "two by four"

A 4GB isn't massive but it's a bit too large for Exchange 2003 to cope

with, certainly along with other users on the server. Then there's the

matter of 120k items. Above 5k items in any one folder and you're

going to get problems server and client side. Cached mode will be of

help in terms of Outlook opening but the performance issues that your

guy sees will just move. Your server won't be a great deal happier.

Education is probably best.
 
J

Jaime

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> wrote in message

news:A1923777-761D-4550-9EE8-5869D9F1380C@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!
 
J

John

I agree but how do you deal with bosses or company owners who refuse to

delete/archive email? Education doesn't seem to work if they ignore what I

tell them.

"Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@mvps.org> wrote in message

news:kb2mm5lbrji4cfrcc58c59qpvd87knfn46@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:41:02 -0800, ed <ed
> wrote:
>
> >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!


> The only thing that will help is some "two by four"
> A 4GB isn't massive but it's a bit too large for Exchange 2003 to cope
> with, certainly along with other users on the server. Then there's the
> matter of 120k items. Above 5k items in any one folder and you're
> going to get problems server and client side. Cached mode will be of
> help in terms of Outlook opening but the performance issues that your
> guy sees will just move. Your server won't be a great deal happier.

> Education is probably best.
 
M

Mark Arnold [MVP]

On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:07:47 -0800, "John" <a> wrote:


> I agree but how do you deal with bosses or company owners who refuse to
> delete/archive email? Education doesn't seem to work if they ignore what I
> tell them.
>


You shove a costed proposal for Exchange 2010 and outlook 2010 under

his nose and tell him that's the price for his email.
 
J

Jaime

"Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@mvps.org> wrote in message

news:jfgmm59ts9ceq7q4c93s0lgo07vis23gbn@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:07:47 -0800, "John" <a> wrote:
>
> >I agree but how do you deal with bosses or company owners who refuse to
> >delete/archive email? Education doesn't seem to work if they ignore what I
> >tell them.
> >

> You shove a costed proposal for Exchange 2010 and outlook 2010 under
> his nose and tell him that's the price for his email.


Had to laugh, apparently it's not just *my* GM who is the worst e-mail

offender at a company! :eek:)

James

Orlando (Goofy says "Hey"), Florida
 
E

Ed Crowley [MVP]

Yeah, just tell him that he can keep everything, just move it to separate

folders each with less than 5,000 items.

Ed Crowley MVP

"There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems."

> .

"Jaime" <NOSPAMjaimelobo@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:uIjdIZepKHA.5588@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "Mark Arnold [MVP]" <mark@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:jfgmm59ts9ceq7q4c93s0lgo07vis23gbn@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:07:47 -0800, "John" <a> wrote:
> >
> >>I agree but how do you deal with bosses or company owners who refuse to
> >>delete/archive email? Education doesn't seem to work if they ignore what
> >>I
> >>tell them.
> >>

> > You shove a costed proposal for Exchange 2010 and outlook 2010 under
> > his nose and tell him that's the price for his email.


> Had to laugh, apparently it's not just *my* GM who is the worst e-mail
> offender at a company! :eek:)
> > James
> Orlando (Goofy says "Hey"), Florida
 
E

Ed Crowley [MVP]

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@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:O2OVPtdpKHA.4836@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> wrote in message
> news:A1923777-761D-4550-9EE8-5869D9F1380C@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!

>
 
J

jbit

On Feb 4, 12:41 pm, ed <e...> wrote:
> Hi all,

> exchange2003 sp2/outlook2003

> I have one user that compaints to take longer time to open outlook.  hehas
> 120,000 items and 4GB size after our archived system.  It seems that hedoes
> not want to delete anything from the email.

> Will cache mode help him?  any other suggestions?

> 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. 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.

Have you tried an archiving solution that stubs out his mail? Look at

Archive Manager (Quest/ScriptLogic) or another product like that.
 
M

Mark Arnold [MVP]

> 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.
 
J

jbit

On Feb 5, 8:28 am, "Mark Arnold [MVP]" <m...@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.
 
J

Jaime

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@nospam.net> wrote in message

news:#gr292fpKHA.1548@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@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O2OVPtdpKHA.4836@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> wrote in message
> > news:A1923777-761D-4550-9EE8-5869D9F1380C@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!

> >

>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top