Hello All

I know about all the issues inherrent with utilsing PST files and know
PST files = BAD. However I recently started working at large company
who have a policy that dictates any messages older than 45 days old
should be removed from the Exchange server and archived to a local PST
file. This rule is not good IMO but the rule is there to stay and they
are fully aware of all the implications regarding this policy.

My question is really based around the new format PST file (Unicode)
with Outlook 2003. Is this file more stable and less susceptible to
corruption? I know there is a limit to 20GB by default on the new file
so I can only assume the file is more stable than in previous versions.
Any thoughts on this from anyone?

Some of the users are migrating from a home grown POP3 mail application
which has an export to PST migration option written into it especially
for the migration to Exchange. They also have large mailboxes a few are
in the region of 4GB although this is not the norm. The idea is that
once they perform the export the PST file will be available from
Outlook within their new profile. It works pretty well however I am
concerned regarding using 4GB size PST files!!!!!

Thoughts welcome

Thanks

AJ

Yes, the new .pst format is more stable, less susceptible to corruption, and can grow to 33TB in size with Group Policy Object changes to set a higher limit that the default 20GB.

The real concern at those large sizes is backup. Users should also be made aware that performance can degrade if they have folders with thousands of items in them. More folders with fewer items will perform better that fewer folders with more items.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.turtleflock.com/olconfig/index.htm
and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers
http://www.outlookcode.com/jumpstart.aspx

"AndyJ" wrote in message oups.com...

My question is really based around the new format PST file (Unicode)
with Outlook 2003. Is this file more stable and less susceptible to
corruption? I know there is a limit to 20GB by default on the new file
so I can only assume the file is more stable than in previous versions.
Any thoughts on this from anyone?

Some of the users are migrating from a home grown POP3 mail application
which has an export to PST migration option written into it especially
for the migration to Exchange. They also have large mailboxes a few are
in the region of 4GB although this is not the norm. The idea is that
once they perform the export the PST file will be available from
Outlook within their new profile. It works pretty well however I am
concerned regarding using 4GB size PST files!!!!!

Thoughts welcome

Thanks

AJ

In oups.com,
AndyJ typed:
Hello All

I know about all the issues inherrent with utilsing PST files and know
PST files = BAD. However I recently started working at large company
who have a policy that dictates any messages older than 45 days old
should be removed from the Exchange server and archived to a local PST
file. This rule is not good IMO but the rule is there to stay and they
are fully aware of all the implications regarding this policy.

My question is really based around the new format PST file (Unicode)
with Outlook 2003. Is this file more stable and less susceptible to
corruption? I know there is a limit to 20GB by default on the new file
so I can only assume the file is more stable than in previous
versions. Any thoughts on this from anyone?

Some of the users are migrating from a home grown POP3 mail
application which has an export to PST migration option written into
it especially for the migration to Exchange. They also have large
mailboxes a few are in the region of 4GB although this is not the
norm. The idea is that once they perform the export the PST file
will be available from Outlook within their new profile. It works
pretty well however I am concerned regarding using 4GB size PST
files!!!!!

Thoughts welcome

Thanks

AJ

In addition to Sue's reply -

Where are you planning on storing these, and what is the company policy on
*supporting* them?