Dan, You're right, offline folders wouldn't help alleviate the mailbox size restriction problem......
There's still the question: Is storage space on your file server less expensive than on your Exchange server? If there's a good reason that some users need more than 400 Mb worth of storage space, why make them split things into PST's? PST's on file servers aren't "bad" per-say, just a waste of time and resources and a potential headache for the admin... Joe Pochedley "I like deadlines," cartoonist Scott Adams once said. "I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -----Original Message----- From: Atkinson, Daniel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:10 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies thanks for your comment ed. i like the idea of offline folders, but surely these would just be mirrors of the users mailbox, or a subset thereof. That's not what's needed here...the users need to archive data so they stay under the store limit and can send mail. I don't see how an offline folder could be used in this manner. am i missing something about offline folders? dan. > I'm not going to argue with you on your point, but I suggest that > offline folders might be more appropriate. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > Compaq Computer Corporation > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson, > Daniel > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 4:52 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > ok, check this pst scenario: > > exchange site in uk, 450 users, 400mb mailbox limit, 30gb store. > > servers are located in london, remote sites in northern cities connect > via 2mbps links. > > users often hit the mailbox limit and have to archive to pst. > in london, > they just move items to a pst on their local disk, and we > make sure that > they understand their data is no longer available via OWA or backed up > nightly. > > in the northern cities, the techs have put the PST's onto network > drives. i immediately yelled "pst on net drives = bad" but their > philosophy is that they have plentiful disk space on their file > servers and a fast network, so they do this to gain the advantage of > backing up > the pst's. > > i can't think of any good reason to persuade them to store > the pst's on > local hard drives, and i think that's because there isn't one. > > dan. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 11 January 2002 06:11 > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > > > > That's fine [1] but keep them off file servers. > > > > [1] not really > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP > > Tech Consultant > > Compaq Computer > > "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral > > problems." > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Cook, David A. > > Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 12:34 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > > > > I have read all those things about PST=BAD and I have used all of > > those. I gave my suggestion of do not allow any PSTs and I was told > > that we have to allow PSTs. The reasons is the best part of the > > whole thing, "they have always been able to use PSTs so we can't > > take that away from > > them". Politics is the problem. > > > > The more I'm thinking about this the madder it makes me. I've given > > this recommendation before and then this time I was asked to give > > the recommendation again so it could be taking to the powers that > > be. I give > > my recommendation and I'm told it is not acceptable. I'm pretty much > > being given the recommandation and being told that it is my > > recommendation now justify it. I can't justify the wrong decision. > > > > So that was my rant that you all could care less about but > thank you > > everyone for the input. > > > > > > Dave Cook > > Exchange Administrator > > Kutak Rock, LLP > > 402-231-8352 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
