RE: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq
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]
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]
RE: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq
Perzactly... But if I read the original post a little differently, meaning I think the question that is being asked is not How much space does e-mail take up on the server, if stored in PST's vs. SIS? but rather, Why do the attachments in PST files take up more space than the original attachments in the store? and Why do some attachments expand in the .pst file at a greater rate than others? Am I correct Ronni? Jim Blunt -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:56 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq 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] _ 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]
RE: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq
Put *that* in your[1] blb and smoke it! [1] metaphorically speaking of course. paul -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:56 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq 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] _ 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]
RE: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq
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]
RE: question re pst=bad#7 from the faq
PST's store 2 copies of messages (2 different formats, IIRC). Then there is the loss of Single Instance Ratio, which I've rarely seen below 2. So, 4x is a minimum in my book. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Smith, Ronni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 1:14 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] _ 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]
