PST files stored on server/Performance monitoring 1

[wlfpackr]

We're running into an issue here and I believe the main culprit are PST files. All of our users' personal directories are stored on a single Server 2003 box. Their Outlook inbox sits on an exchange server at corporate HQ and is limited to 50MB and email is deleted after 90days.

To be able to store email long-term, they all have Outlook PST files in their Home directories on the server here. It appears that these .pst files have grown out of control and are now causing some major problems on the server.

We have around 500-550 users and I'd say average .pst file size is 500MB or larger for a lot of users. We get 5, 10, 15 people a week it seems that cannot get into their PST files. The issues tend to disappear just as randomly as they occur.

I've seen that MS says that using .pst files over a LAN/WAN is not supported, but there has to be a way to archive messages in this manner? I can't imagine we're the only company that has this problem? Anyone else have a fix or solution? What would I use on the Performance Monitor to ensure that this is indeed the actual issue? I've watched system resources and it doesn't appear to be a processor or memory issue.

=================
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that do not.

 

[cckens]

If you MUST PST, do what I do. Download the PST backup utility from MS and install it on the machines. Locally store the PSTs and then set it to back them up to a network share. No network overhead until they do the backup which can be set to run every x days.

Gods, if your corporation gets sued, they're gonna be real sorry they didn't invest in a REAL archiving solution.

Ken

"cckens is a nick... why the H-E- double-hockey-sticks am I using a nick for a name? Am I afraid of who I am?"
-me
"...don't know why, but I think of chickens when I see that nick...maybe even choking chickens???"
-Tony (wahnula)

 

[58sniper]

Increase the size of their mailboxes and leave the mail in there. There are FAR more advantages to doing that than putting it in .pst files.

.pst files aren't supported on network shares for very good reason. Not the least of which is that the .pst file wasn't designed to be accessed over the network. It increases corruption, etc. You also lose single instancing, ability to virus scan, etc. There are known size limitations and other issues with .pst files as well.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[wlfpackr]

cckens,

Does the backup utility require Outlook to be closed before the .pst file can be backed up? I notice .pst files are pretty picky about when they can be used.

As far as the lawsuit thing goes, well, I agree with you. We're an aerospace and defense company. You'd think we would need to keep that info around in case an airplane crashes or a tank blows up. When we were bought out by a Fortune 50 company, though, their policy is email is not kept for longer than 90 days. Go figure. Even failed an IT audit b/c we were holding our old legacy email system on back up tapes for longer than 90days.

I'm sure someone much smarter than I has a good reason behind this policy, but it's kind of hard to explain it to the people on the ground here. We're doing the best we can to adapt and we'll just plead ignorance if we have to later.



58sniper,

We don't have control of the email servers any longer, they are about 8 states away. We're at the mercy of corporate HQ and their policies.

=================
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that do not.

 

[cckens]

On close of Outlook, if you either manually tell it to backup, or if it's reached its timeframe for backup, the system opens an "reading" instance of Outlook to copy the PST to the location indicated in setup. It WILL NOT copy while another instance of Outlook is open. This makes it a bit tricky if your users are keeping large PSTs and closing out only at the end of the day as shutdown will kill the backup process.

It's a bit messy, but if you want to avoid opening PSTs from network locations, it's viable. I'd say make it policy, roll it out to those users who are receptive, and to those who are not, wait until their data corrupts and then point at the policy and let them cry in their soup... just my opinion by the way.

Yeah, I used to work for a government contractor. Between Sorbannes-Oxley and Legal jumping on us for executive e-mail stores, I'm glad I'm outta there.

As for someone smarter??? NO. Someone higher up the food chain who doesn't completely understand data retention in legal matters, maybe. They just aren't aware of the sheer volume of work it can take to recover just 500MB of e-mail from 1 months ago, let alone 90 days... A good archiving solution will cost less in the long run and provide faster data "regurgitation" than having to comb through PSTs and CD/DVD backups... I work for a small company (20 or so people) now. Corporate Archiving solutions are beyond my budget, and my main limitation is the size of my Exchange box so I have no choice but to use PSTs and archiving. My people are used to it, so "no muss, no fuss."

Ken

"cckens is a nick... why the H-E- double-hockey-sticks am I using a nick for a name? Am I afraid of who I am?"
-me
"...don't know why, but I think of chickens when I see that nick...maybe even choking chickens???"
-Tony (wahnula)

 

[wlfpackr]

No SOXA? Ahhhhh, I miss those days. We used to be owned by a European company. Didn't have to deal with SOXA and a lot of other regulations. It was awesome! Had to actually hire another person just to keep up with all the peripheral crap we have to deal with now.

I tried the PST Backup Tool. Kind of clunky, but hey, much better than our current setup and what I was afraid we were going to have to do.

Thanks!

=================
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those that understand binary and those that do not.