|
outlook
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PST, OST and OAB on fast LAN - really unsupported/problematic?Hello,
I recently read that putting the PST (and presumably the OST and OAB files?) on a network share is not supported by MS because it can lead to corruption of those files, plus adds a significant network overhead. Does that really happen in real-life deployments? Has anyone seen data corruption on a fast (100mb - 1gb) LAN? We have a few thousand users on our LAN and we're going to migrate them to Outlook soon. At a guess, 10% or more would roam internally. Running in Classic Online mode isn't a problem but my boss wants to provide PST access at least on their "home PC" until a central archiving system is installed later on. Thanks in advance for any advice. - Alan. In news:1160824312.514719.210770@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, Alan <bru***@gmail.com> typed:> Hello, Yep. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=297019> > I recently read that putting the PST (and presumably the OST and OAB > files?) on a network share is not supported by MS because it can lead > to corruption of those files, plus adds a significant network > overhead. And think about it - what would be the point of putting an OST file (cached mode or otherwise) on a non-local drive? Same with an offline address book? That won't help if they're truly offline - and gawd, think of the disk space you'd be chewing up. > Yep.> Does that really happen in real-life deployments? Has anyone seen data > corruption on a fast (100mb - 1gb) LAN? > From what? And to what? You imply that you'll be using Exchange, and I will > We have a few thousand users on our LAN and we're going to migrate > them to Outlook soon. infer that you are going to Exchange 2003 enterprise. > At a guess, 10% or more would roam internally. PST files are probably not going to work for you - and definitely won't work well for those users. You *might* have luck; you might not. Those wouldn't be good enough odds for me considering the size of your user base. > Running in Classic Online mode I'm not sure what you mean - I guess you mean you won't use cached mode? That has nothing to do with this. And I would definitely use cached mode! > isn't a problem but my boss wants to That is a bad plan, in my book. Your network is too big to do this > provide PST access at least on their "home PC" until a central > archiving system is installed later on. piecemeal - you need to do some planning & budgeting before you even start this process. Unless you mean you will put it there and not support it at all - it's at the user's risk that they use it. > I think you should look into ditching PST files entirely.> Thanks in advance for any advice. > > - Alan. See http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/Why-PST-=-BAD-/q/Why-PST-=-BAD/qid/1209 Thanks for the advice!
By "Classic Online" mode I meant not checking the "enable offline mode" in the mailbox setup pages, thus avoiding OST/OAB use entirely, but still allowing PSTs. We're migrating from a non-MS mailsystem to E2k3, the client will either be Outlook 2002/XP or Outlook 2003 (Office XP is currently deployed and won't be upgraded to Office 2003). I've mentioned to my boss that PSTs and roaming access is not supported but wanted to check that it has actually caused problems in real-world deployments. As usual, the best technical solution is at odds with what the boss wants. Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote: Show quote > In news:1160824312.514719.210770@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, > Alan <bru***@gmail.com> typed: > > Hello, > > > > I recently read that putting the PST (and presumably the OST and OAB > > files?) on a network share is not supported by MS because it can lead > > to corruption of those files, plus adds a significant network > > overhead. > > Yep. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=297019 > And think about it - what would be the point of putting an OST file (cached > mode or otherwise) on a non-local drive? Same with an offline address book? > That won't help if they're truly offline - and gawd, think of the disk space > you'd be chewing up. > > > > > Does that really happen in real-life deployments? Has anyone seen data > > corruption on a fast (100mb - 1gb) LAN? > > Yep. > > > > We have a few thousand users on our LAN and we're going to migrate > > them to Outlook soon. > > From what? And to what? You imply that you'll be using Exchange, and I will > infer that you are going to Exchange 2003 enterprise. > > > At a guess, 10% or more would roam internally. > > PST files are probably not going to work for you - and definitely won't work > well for those users. You *might* have luck; you might not. Those wouldn't > be good enough odds for me considering the size of your user base. > > > > Running in Classic Online mode > > I'm not sure what you mean - I guess you mean you won't use cached mode? > That has nothing to do with this. And I would definitely use cached mode! > > > isn't a problem but my boss wants to > > provide PST access at least on their "home PC" until a central > > archiving system is installed later on. > > That is a bad plan, in my book. Your network is too big to do this > piecemeal - you need to do some planning & budgeting before you even start > this process. Unless you mean you will put it there and not support it at > all - it's at the user's risk that they use it. > > > > Thanks in advance for any advice. > > > > - Alan. > > I think you should look into ditching PST files entirely. > See > http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/Why-PST-=-BAD-/q/Why-PST-=-BAD/qid/1209 In news:1160865744.154354.34850@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, Alan <bru***@gmail.com> typed:> Thanks for the advice! Cached mode in OL2003 is wonderful, in my book. Wouldn't dream of not using > > By "Classic Online" mode I meant not checking the "enable offline > mode" in the mailbox setup pages, thus avoiding OST/OAB use entirely, > but still allowing PSTs. it. (it does use an OST file in the background, but it's seamless to the client). You really *don't* want to keep PSTs in the picture, conversely. I guess your company has a decision to make as to how much of the user's old data they plan to migrate / support. Outside of calendar/contacts/tasks/notes and some subset of mail items, perhaps the rest can just become a locally stored archive for the user to access (which will not roam, and will not be supported at all by IT staff). > It should be, honestly. You get a license to run OL2003 for each license of > We're migrating from a non-MS mailsystem to E2k3, the client will > either be Outlook 2002/XP or Outlook 2003 (Office XP is currently > deployed and won't be upgraded to Office 2003). Exchange you've got - and it is so far beyond better than XP I would definitely want to use it. > I've probably worked for the dude. Let me guess; you have three hours to > I've mentioned to my boss that PSTs and roaming access is not > supported but wanted to check that it has actually caused problems in > real-world deployments. > > As usual, the best technical solution is at odds with what the boss > wants. complete this migration, and the budget for Exchange hardware was approximately $450 USD, right? ;-) Show quote > > > Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote: >> In news:1160824312.514719.210770@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, >> Alan <bru***@gmail.com> typed: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I recently read that putting the PST (and presumably the OST and OAB >>> files?) on a network share is not supported by MS because it can >>> lead to corruption of those files, plus adds a significant network >>> overhead. >> >> Yep. http://support.microsoft.com/?id=297019 >> And think about it - what would be the point of putting an OST file >> (cached mode or otherwise) on a non-local drive? Same with an >> offline address book? That won't help if they're truly offline - and >> gawd, think of the disk space you'd be chewing up. >> >>> >>> Does that really happen in real-life deployments? Has anyone seen >>> data corruption on a fast (100mb - 1gb) LAN? >> >> Yep. >>> >>> We have a few thousand users on our LAN and we're going to migrate >>> them to Outlook soon. >> >> From what? And to what? You imply that you'll be using Exchange, and >> I will infer that you are going to Exchange 2003 enterprise. >> >>> At a guess, 10% or more would roam internally. >> >> PST files are probably not going to work for you - and definitely >> won't work well for those users. You *might* have luck; you might >> not. Those wouldn't be good enough odds for me considering the size >> of your user base. >> >> >>> Running in Classic Online mode >> >> I'm not sure what you mean - I guess you mean you won't use cached >> mode? That has nothing to do with this. And I would definitely use >> cached mode! >> >>> isn't a problem but my boss wants to >>> provide PST access at least on their "home PC" until a central >>> archiving system is installed later on. >> >> That is a bad plan, in my book. Your network is too big to do this >> piecemeal - you need to do some planning & budgeting before you even >> start this process. Unless you mean you will put it there and not >> support it at all - it's at the user's risk that they use it. >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any advice. >>> >>> - Alan. >> >> I think you should look into ditching PST files entirely. >> See >> http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/Why-PST-=-BAD-/q/Why-PST-=-BAD/qid/1209 Is it safe to say that your users are currently in a mixed Outlook,
Outlook Express and other environment? Alan wrote: Show quote > Hello, > > I recently read that putting the PST (and presumably the OST and OAB > files?) on a network share is not supported by MS because it can lead > to corruption of those files, plus adds a significant network overhead. > > Does that really happen in real-life deployments? Has anyone seen data > corruption on a fast (100mb - 1gb) LAN? > > We have a few thousand users on our LAN and we're going to migrate them > to Outlook soon. At a guess, 10% or more would roam internally. Running > in Classic Online mode isn't a problem but my boss wants to provide PST > access at least on their "home PC" until a central archiving system is > installed later on. > > Thanks in advance for any advice. > > - Alan.  
Other interesting topics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
