yes, we did look into archiving products and a couple of them looked really good, but they were really expensive and we couldn't justify the cost following the initial outlay for server hardware and licensing. it's something i'm considering for the future, however.
dan. > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Ko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 14 January 2002 21:44 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > You may want to look into Archive software so you don't have > to support > PST yet your IS is small enough that you don't waste your time waiting > when you have to do something with your IS. > > Brian > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Atkinson, > Daniel > Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 11:20 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Slightly OT: PST policies > > > Yes, storage space is more expensive on the exchange server > because it's > on a SAN, but that's not the point. We have a 400mb mailbox limit for > good reasons. We don't want the information store to grow too large, > otherwise restore times get too long and you can't quickly take a copy > of the store to another drive to try some eseutil or similar > when there > are problems. I firmly believe in keeping the store at a manageable, > copyable and quickly restorable size. > > I've recently faced an exchange restore situation with an 80gb > information store from an online backup, and we had to wait several > hours before we could even begin to work with the inconsistent > databases. Not good. > > So, 'power users' who want 400mb+ have to archive somewhere. > OST's don't > perform this function according to my understanding, so it has to be > PST's. As i said, here in London our guys just leave the PST's on the > local hard drive, but our friends in the north choose to keep them on > file servers where there's a nightly backup. > > So, it seems they've shown me a use of PST's on net drives where no > viable alternative exists to achieve the same result, namely, to > maintain mailbox limits and thus a manageable store while > allowing users > to archive their data where it will get backed up. > > is there a better way? > > dan. > > > 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] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
