Hi,

I have outlook 2003 sp2 and my PST is in new format "office outlook"
i.e. 2003 version. My PST size is ~121 MB. On archiving this PST, the
size of the archival PST file was found to be ~1.08 GB. Can someone
throw light on this issue? Is this a bug or I am not doing some
archival in correct way?

Also tried another pathway. I created a new PST through outlook (PST
version 2003) and then individually copied the folders / messages from
original PST to the new PST. Result was again same. The replica PST
also was of tune of 1.08 GB. Tried repeating the steps by creating
another PST (format version 1997-2002). But still the same problem.

I could only conculde that when Outlook session is operating, MS
Outlook 2003 uses different API set / PST file driver to write to the
desitnation PST. However during copy from one PST to another or during
archival, outlook is using some different API set / copy mechanism.
Please someone throw more light on this.

Thanks in advance for time and consideration.

Regards,
Mandar

did you try compacting the archive pst?

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"win_cpp" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi,

I have outlook 2003 sp2 and my PST is in new format "office outlook"
i.e. 2003 version. My PST size is ~121 MB. On archiving this PST, the
size of the archival PST file was found to be ~1.08 GB. Can someone
throw light on this issue? Is this a bug or I am not doing some
archival in correct way?

Also tried another pathway. I created a new PST through outlook (PST
version 2003) and then individually copied the folders / messages from
original PST to the new PST. Result was again same. The replica PST
also was of tune of 1.08 GB. Tried repeating the steps by creating
another PST (format version 1997-2002). But still the same problem.

I could only conculde that when Outlook session is operating, MS
Outlook 2003 uses different API set / PST file driver to write to the
desitnation PST. However during copy from one PST to another or during
archival, outlook is using some different API set / copy mechanism.
Please someone throw more light on this.

Thanks in advance for time and consideration.

Regards,
Mandar

Hi,

Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:
did you try compacting the archive pst?


Yes I did try compacting the archive PSTs. No effect of the operation.

I suspect that, method in which the mails are written to the
destination PST, on being fetched from the Exchange Server is different
from the method the same mails are archive PST.

Something related to how Outlook 2003 handles the default delivery PST
and the secondary PSTs configured in the outlook profile.

This is just a thought ...

Regards,
Mandar
_______________________________
Mandar D. Sahasrabuddhe
Pune
http://mandards.livejournal.com/
http://360.yahoo.com/mandards

oh, you didn't mention you were archiving your exchange mailbox. That does
not use a pst (so there is not a 121 meg pst to compare it with) and yes,
the messages are much larger because of how Exchange stores messages and
attachments. An exchange mailbox store is always the smallest format.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"win_cpp" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi,

Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:
did you try compacting the archive pst?


Yes I did try compacting the archive PSTs. No effect of the operation.

I suspect that, method in which the mails are written to the
destination PST, on being fetched from the Exchange Server is different
from the method the same mails are archive PST.

Something related to how Outlook 2003 handles the default delivery PST
and the secondary PSTs configured in the outlook profile.

This is just a thought ...

Regards,
Mandar
_______________________________
Mandar D. Sahasrabuddhe
Pune
http://mandards.livejournal.com/
http://360.yahoo.com/mandards

Hi Diane,

Thanks for the reply. This is just to clarify one more issue. I have
got exchange mailbox on my XP machine. This by default is .ost file.
However I wanted the configuration in the old way of
mailbox-pst-smtp-stuff. Hence I created a 2003 outlook pst and set it
as the default PST where all the mails will get delivered; instead of
the .ost file which is created by default in the user profile.

So my query - is it even in this case that the mails delivered to the
pst file (default store) on my machine will always be stored in
smallest format? In other words, does outlook treat this pst (since it
is default) in the same way as if it were the .ost file itself.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards,
Mandar
_______________________________
Mandar D. Sahasrabuddhe
Pune
http://mandards.livejournal.com/
http://360.yahoo.com/mandards


Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:
oh, you didn't mention you were archiving your exchange mailbox. That does
not use a pst (so there is not a 121 meg pst to compare it with) and yes,
the messages are much larger because of how Exchange stores messages and
attachments. An exchange mailbox store is always the smallest format.

No, it doesn't. The messages stored in it will always be larger. FWIW, it
defeats the purpose of exchange if you use a pst - you can't use owa or
share calendars etc.

--
Diane Poremsky [MVP - Outlook]
Author, Teach Yourself Outlook 2003 in 24 Hours
Coauthor, OneNote 2003 for Windows (Visual QuickStart Guide)
Need Help with Common Tasks? http://www.outlook-tips.net/beginner/
Outlook 2007: http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/

Outlook Tips: http://www.outlook-tips.net/
Outlook & Exchange Solutions Center: http://www.slipstick.com
Subscribe to Exchange Messaging Outlook newsletter:



"win_cpp" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi Diane,

Thanks for the reply. This is just to clarify one more issue. I have
got exchange mailbox on my XP machine. This by default is .ost file.
However I wanted the configuration in the old way of
mailbox-pst-smtp-stuff. Hence I created a 2003 outlook pst and set it
as the default PST where all the mails will get delivered; instead of
the .ost file which is created by default in the user profile.

So my query - is it even in this case that the mails delivered to the
pst file (default store) on my machine will always be stored in
smallest format? In other words, does outlook treat this pst (since it
is default) in the same way as if it were the .ost file itself.

Thanks again for your help.

Regards,
Mandar
_______________________________
Mandar D. Sahasrabuddhe
Pune
http://mandards.livejournal.com/
http://360.yahoo.com/mandards


Diane Poremsky [MVP] wrote:
oh, you didn't mention you were archiving your exchange mailbox. That
does
not use a pst (so there is not a 121 meg pst to compare it with) and yes,
the messages are much larger because of how Exchange stores messages and
attachments. An exchange mailbox store is always the smallest format.