sqlhotdog2005
MIS
My Outlook is taking up about 63mb of ram, as I look in Task Manager... and I have "thousands" of emails stored. Will it take up more ram as more and more emails are stored?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Does Outlook use more RAM as emails are stored? 1
- Thread starter sqlhotdog2005
- Start date
- Status
One must be careful in OL as there is a uper limit to the *.pst file size..As I recall this is 2GB...as your DB for these mails increases so will the loaded OL size but as you have noticed it is not a 1:1 proportion. Just the tracking info for each mail.
Answer, yes but not in a 1:1 ratio
rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all
Answer, yes but not in a 1:1 ratio
rvnguy
"I know everything..I just can't remember it all
-
1
- #3
The limit to the .pst file is based on the type of .pst file. For all versions before Outlook 2003, 2GB is the limit. In Outlook 2003, when you create a .pst file, you are given the choice between a standard .pst file (2GB), and the Outlook 2003 .pst file (20GB). That's assuming there isn't any further limitations based on
How to configure the size limit for both (.pst) and (.ost) files in Outlook 2003
As for additionaly RAM needed, that depends on the number of items in a folder. If you have, say 20,000 items in your Inbox, Outlook is going to crawl as compared to if you have 10.
Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)
How to configure the size limit for both (.pst) and (.ost) files in Outlook 2003
As for additionaly RAM needed, that depends on the number of items in a folder. If you have, say 20,000 items in your Inbox, Outlook is going to crawl as compared to if you have 10.
Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)
- Thread starter
- #4
sqlhotdog2005
MIS
Thanks for those replies, friends... gives me a little to go on... my pst file is about 800mb, but that 63mb of RAM seems like a lot... maybe if I "disable" some Outlook functionality that I don't use, like Journals...
CorBlimeyLimey
Technical User
If you archive your older files, that should (???) reduce the loaded ".pst" file size.
[Cheers]
[Cheers]
- Thread starter
- #6
CorBlimeyLimey
Technical User
But wouldn't the archives only be loaded for access "on demand"? If not, what's the point of the archives. ![[ponder]](/data/assets/smilies/ponder.gif "[ponder] [ponder]")
[Cheers]
[Cheers]
Outlook is still dealing with that file all the time as it archives email. Then, the user decides they want to be able to view it, so they add it to their profile.
Additionally, if the are on a server somewhere (gasp!), then you're dealing with network access to two files (.pst files aren't supposed to be networked, and aren't supported that way).
If you're using Exchange, here is why .pst files are bad:
They're fragile, especially as they get big. They get corrupted too easily. Users aren't the best at ensuring that their systems are properly shut down.
You have to run the Inbox Repair Tool on them way too often.
Your users don't back them up. Presumably you do back up the server.
Your users don't compact them. They just get bigger and bigger.
Your users forget their PST passwords. Even though there are unsupported tools to crack them, it can take a significant amount of time to do so.
You lose single instance store (SIS).
Messages take up more space in a PST than in an Exchange store.
It's simply nuts to store PSTs on a network drive. They just end up taking up more space. Is disk space on your file server cheaper than disk space on your Exchange server?
One might think that it will be easier to restore a single mailbox by using server-based PSTs. However, with proper implementation of the Ed Crowley Never Lose a Mailbox Procedure, it should never ever be necessary to restore a mailbox.
For road warriors, OSTs are a much superior storage technique, especially with the improvements made with Outlook 98. They allow untethered computing at a higher level than with PSTs, plus with the added security of a backed-up information store on the server.
A PST can be opened by only one machine at a time. This precludes a manager and assistant from working from the same PST simultaneously, and precludes team access.
You cannot use Outlook Web Access to read your downloaded messages.
Future applications, such as unified messaging, will be poorly implemented when using PSTs. Groupware applications that work with the mailbox probably won't work at all.
PST files are not secure. Anyone with access to the PST file can open it using the right tools.
You cannot clean up PST files after virus infestations.
Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)
Additionally, if the are on a server somewhere (gasp!), then you're dealing with network access to two files (.pst files aren't supposed to be networked, and aren't supported that way).
If you're using Exchange, here is why .pst files are bad:
They're fragile, especially as they get big. They get corrupted too easily. Users aren't the best at ensuring that their systems are properly shut down.
You have to run the Inbox Repair Tool on them way too often.
Your users don't back them up. Presumably you do back up the server.
Your users don't compact them. They just get bigger and bigger.
Your users forget their PST passwords. Even though there are unsupported tools to crack them, it can take a significant amount of time to do so.
You lose single instance store (SIS).
Messages take up more space in a PST than in an Exchange store.
It's simply nuts to store PSTs on a network drive. They just end up taking up more space. Is disk space on your file server cheaper than disk space on your Exchange server?
One might think that it will be easier to restore a single mailbox by using server-based PSTs. However, with proper implementation of the Ed Crowley Never Lose a Mailbox Procedure, it should never ever be necessary to restore a mailbox.
For road warriors, OSTs are a much superior storage technique, especially with the improvements made with Outlook 98. They allow untethered computing at a higher level than with PSTs, plus with the added security of a backed-up information store on the server.
A PST can be opened by only one machine at a time. This precludes a manager and assistant from working from the same PST simultaneously, and precludes team access.
You cannot use Outlook Web Access to read your downloaded messages.
Future applications, such as unified messaging, will be poorly implemented when using PSTs. Groupware applications that work with the mailbox probably won't work at all.
PST files are not secure. Anyone with access to the PST file can open it using the right tools.
You cannot clean up PST files after virus infestations.
Pat Richard, MCSE(2) MCSA:Messaging, CNA(2)
- Status
Similar threads
