Exactly. In Exchange, if I email a 1MB file to 100 people in the company, that file use 1MB of disk space. If I do the same email, yet everyone is using PST files, It now consumes 100MB of disk space.
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq I would bet that on that (4x) .pst file, you have a lots of messages that refers to the same attachments. Exchange server will take care of it with SIS, but .pst breaks that. Andrew MCSE (W2K & NT4) + CCNA > -----Original Message----- > From: Smith, Ronni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Posted At: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:14 AM > Posted To: ExchangeDiscussion > Conversation: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq > Subject: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq > > > In the FAQ under PST=BAD reason 7 is "Messages take up more > space in a PST than in an Exchange store." I seem to be > finding that that is true but I am finding some of them > taking up something like 4 times as much space which seems > overboard to me. Others only seem to be increasing by about > 30% not 300% so I'm thinking there must be something odd > going on. Does anyone know what the range of "more space" is? > Or why some folders would be that much worse than others? Or > do I have screwed up folders in some fashion? Searching the > FAQ didn't find anything specific enough and searching > Technet I didn't find anything that gave me any quantitative > information. Even the qualitative information was not as > helpful as it seems it could have been. Which is to say I > couldn't find any indication of what the causes might be so > that I could see if they applied more in one case than > another. If any one knows one way or another if a 4x factor > is not atypical I would appreciate the tip. Ditto any tips on > the range of "more space". Or any suggestions at all really. > > Thanks all, > > Ronni > > > P.S. To save time let me make clear that I am aware that > "disk space costs are the same". Actually they are not, in > that CDs per MB are still cheaper than SCSI disk per MB even > with a 4x size factor on the pst file. And I know pst=bad for > many reasons not just number 7, but we are only using them > for archival (FAQ: PST=Good#2) purposes (many messages with > deliverable documents or what-have-you creates a large > mailbox fairly easily) so the users have what they sent > clients and also what the clients sent us for when questions > come up again. As they often do. And this is way cheaper for > us than upgrading to the Enterprise version of Exchange 2000 > would be in order to get an unlimited store even if disk > space weren't an issue. > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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]
