In my experience, the bloat per mailbox[1] has varied somewhere between 1.2 and 60 times[2] the original mailbox size.
Some of the bloat is due to there being two copies of each message saved when mail is exported to a PST file, one is the plaintext equivalent of the first. In a mailbox with very few attachments, this can result in a sizable increase in the relative size of the mailbox. The 60x bloat I experienced was due to custom Exchange forms, the definition of which must be saved with the individual items in a PST file, while it can be singularly referenced from the store. [1] Not per store. [2] Yes, that's 60. > -----Original Message----- > From: Smith, Ronni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:14 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > 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]
