Re: Message size differs between OST and Exchange store

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry

Hello Lanwench,

so, as for the user: she was simply comparing the local and server data
statistics, because her mailbox size hit the quota limit.

Regards, Joern

"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

Joern.Lippold <JoernLippold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A user was complaining about the server mailbox size is 50% larger
than in the OST (Outlook mailbox cleanup wizard: local/server data).

But why is the user even looking there? That's what I'm getting at. I don't
know what the average size difference is between a mailbox and an OST,
because I don't *look* at the OST file directly unless I am having a problem
with it.

Investigating on whether there is real problem or not I found the
difference for a message with a ZIP attachment.

Currently there is no urging problem, but if I find the phenomenon
would be true for many messages (I don't know yet), it would get a
problem.

I guess I don't see why.



"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

Joern.Lippold <JoernLippold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sync issues: yes, I checked the sync issues folder and found no
messages there.

Determining the space used by a message: OWA and Outlook without
Cached Mode are reporting 11MB (message size column) while when
running Cached Exchange Mode the messages size is displayed with 5MB
(the message size is as well 5MB within a PST or when storing the
message on hard disk).

OK. I guess what I'm asking is, is there actually a problem going on
here? Or are you just curious?


"Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote:

Joern.Lippold <JoernLippold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I let Outlook recreate the OST already, the difference in size
still is about 25 MB.

Did you check the sync issues folder as Rich suggested?

But in fact I didn't wonder much about the difference in the
overall mailbox size (can be explained by compression etc.), but
that a message with an already ZIP-compressed attachment consumes
double the space on the server (11MB instead of 5) than it really
needs.

How are you determining this?

This is
not very effective, right? So I ask myself whether I have any kind
of problem or maintenance issues with the Exchange stores.

It's unlikely.


"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" wrote:

On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:48:19 -0400, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwench@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Joern.Lippold <JoernLippold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
System: Exchange 2003 EE SP2, Server 2003, Outlook 2003 in
Cached Excahnge Mode

A user who reached her quota limit noticed a difference in
folder sizes between local and server data (Cached Mode), when
using the "Folder Size" button for any Outlook folder (context
menu - folder properties). The folder size on the Exchange
server was always larger than the local one.

That's normal.

Usually. But I'd be checking the "Sync Issues" folders to see if
there's a problem. The OST may be damaged and might not be
receiving all the mail the server mailbox does. Of course, the
assumption here is that every folder is sync'd, and that may not
be true. It may also be that not every message s sync'd, either!
---
Rich Matheisen
MCSE+I, Exchange MVP




.

Quantcast