Outlook 2003 in online mode is said to behave sluggishly when mailbox homed on Exchange 2010

  • Thread starter Olli Krollmann
  • Start date Views 862
O

Olli Krollmann



Hi all

I was told (unverified) that Microsoft dropped the UDP-based new mail notification feature in Exchange 2010, so that Outlook 2003 online clients do not receive real-time updates about server-side mailbox changes anymore. This appears to affect any kind of mailbox operation, not just new mail arriving, but also move and delete operations etc.

Cached mode works differently, so that would explain why it is not affected. Also, Outlook 2007 is said to work ok in either online or cached mode.

Is anyone able to corroborate this story? This would obviously have a huge impact on planned migrations where Outlook 2003 is still used as a client and cannot be switched to cached mode (e.g. on terminal servers, on older clients with not enough local disk space, on shared or pool laptops etc.).

Thanks
Olli
 
L

lenlouie_hotmail.com

I also see this behaviour using netmon.  I sent an email to myself, but don't see any UDP packets for the notifications.   Can someone from MSFT confirm this?
 
J

Jonas A Larsen

As explained in another thread, I see this behavior as well in our enviroment for outlook 2003 clients not running in cached mode. I have not looked at the network activity so i can not comment on if its because of the UDP method you describe, it does sound like thats likely though.

We also see other weird issues with outlook 2003 clients in online mode, like weird display bug in the folder list with weird space inbetween folders etc etc.

Generally i'd say outlook 2003 works very very poorly with exchange 2010, which is also the general concensus from hearing various presentations about it in the past couple of months :(

I wish MS would have dropped support for 2003 so you coudl have known, or done a better job at testing the compatability before launching ex2010.

Best regards

Jonas Larsenblabla
 
O

Olli Krollmann

Can we get confirmation for this issue from Microsoft? This is not something to sweep under the rug - it will have a huge impact for a lot of environments that are considering to jump from Exchange 2003 to 2010 and are still running Outlook 2003 clients in online mode.

Please also advise any possible workarounds to mitigate this behaviour in case an Outlook 2003 client cannot be upgraded or switched to cached mode (e.g. on terminal servers or clients with limited local disk space).

Regards
Olli
 
A

Alexander Zalozny

I have the same problem.

Has anyone found a solution to the problem, without including cached mode?
 
B

Brian Day MCITP [MVP]

I would open a ticket with PSS. If it is a bug then you won't be charged.Brian Day, Overall Exchange & AD Geek
MCSA 2000/2003, CCNA
MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Configuration
LMNOP
 
O

Olli Krollmann

I have not commenced the migration to Exchange 2010 yet. I would need clarification before I decide to go down that path. With an issue like that and no solution in sight, my whole migration project is in danger of being cancelled or significantly delayed. PSS will most probably require me to reproduce the bug first, which means I have to perform the server-side part of the migration and then pause it for weeks while PSS makes me jumping through the usual hoops.

Has anyone else raised that issue with PSS already, and if so, can you provide some insights how to resolve this?

Olli
 
O

Olli Krollmann

Again, I would like someone from Microsoft to shed some light on this. The combined feedback of all contributors to this thread includes
- delay issues similar to the ones caused by blocked UDP traffic (ForcePolling does not seem to provide a solution)
- corrupted mailbox folder structures (maybe a display problem only)
when using Outlook 2003 in online mode with a mailbox homed on Exchange 2010 (with or without Rollup 1).

As it was pointed out several times before switching Outlook 2003 to cached mode may not always be feasible (especially in TS environments), so these issues need to be addressed. Microsoft, please advise.
 
J

Jonas A Larsen

plese check http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2009942

Well its great to finally see ackowledge of part o the problem.

However after reading the kb im hugely disapointed. If i read it correctly outlook cant be made to poll exchange for updates any more frequent than once every 10 seconds?

Meaning if you delete,move or do any other action to an object nothing happens for 10!! seconds. I do not believe a single user anywhere in the world would consider a 10 seconds delay as normal.

So in my eyes this fixes nothing at all. Am I alone in thinking this?Best regards Jonas Akrouh Larsen
IT-Consultant
http://www.techbiz.dk
 
T

testrrrr

I just tried it in my testenvironment its much better than before but I agree: 10 Seconds is not really a solouton.
 
B

bobmk



This is quite a significant problem for us which none of the workarounds addresses properly.

1. Outlook 2010 is not a released product and we have not budgeted for an Office upgrade.

2. Outlook 2003 in cached mode only is not an option when used on terminal server.

3. The 5000ms polling interval on the Client Access Server will impact the performance of the CAS and is still not fast enough for users.

The lack of UDP updates is a serious omission, and if this was by design, then this is major setback for the users of Exchange 2010.

We need an Exchange 2010 solution which properly supports Outlook 2003 running without cached mode.

Bob
 
B

Brian Day MCITP [MVP]



This is quite a significant problem for us which none of the workarounds addresses properly.

1. Outlook 2010 is not a released product and we have not budgeted for an Office upgrade.

2. Outlook 2003 in cached mode only is not an option when used on terminal server.

3. The 5000ms polling interval on the Client Access Server will impact the performance of the CAS and is still not fast enough for users.

The lack of UDP updates is a serious omission, and if this was by design, then this is major setback for the users of Exchange 2010.

We need an Exchange 2010 solution which properly supports Outlook 2003 running without cached mode.

Bob


Please keep in mind Office 2003 Mainstream Support ended on 4/14/2009 (http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=2520) and is now in Extended Support until 2014. This means Microsoft has no obligation to create a client-side fix for this if that is what would be required. What are your plans for upgrading to at least Office 2007? I see that you say you have not budgeted for an Office upgrade, but it is always critical to do such things as not to get caught behind the proverbial eight-ball when one peice of your infrastrucutre becomes too knew for other parts of it.Brian Day, Overall Exchange & AD Geek
MCSA 2000/2003, CCNA
MCTS: Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Configuration
LMNOP
 
O

Olli Krollmann

Brian

I totally agree with Bob. We are not asking for a client-side fix here. Microsoft should reactivate the server-side UDP notification feature but make it configurable (via a registry value, or even better via an option that can be set by the Set-ClientAccessServer cmdlet) to turn it off or on. That would allow us to still enable it during the migration phase and turn it off eventually when it is no longer needed to support Outlook 2003 online clients. This is best practice to support older clients and phase out a deprecated feature over time, rather than just dropping the feature, not documenting it in the first place, and let the early adopters trip over it.

Would someone from Microsoft please pick this up and address it to the product group for inclusion in the next Update Rollup?

Thanks
Olli
 
T

Tobias99

Hello,
have somebody any news about the problem with the 10 sec.?
Tobias
 
O

Olli Krollmann - MoE



Any chance Exchange 2010 SP1 includes the dropped UDP email notification feature, to fully support Outlook 2003 in online mode?

Olli
 
Top