Re: Using PST files with Exchange and Outlook
- From: "Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 14:04:43 -0500
Sounds right. You'd first go to Control Panel -> Mail and set the default
delivery location to the server mailbox. That way, all future mail will go
there instead of the PST. Then drag-and-drop any necessary information from
the PST to the server mailbox (or use File -> Import and Export if it's a
lot of data). Then r-click the PST in the Outlook Folder List and click
Close. That'll keep Outlook from looking for the PST when you start it up.
If you have both Exchange Server and "Personal Folders" in the Outlook
profiles, you can remove Personal Folders.
A painfully learned lesson - consider getting rid of the PSTs by deleting or
renaming them. I've had situations where Outlook items accidentally went to
an old PST due to a rule or an MRU (most recently used) list in Outlook.
For example, if you click the Move to Folder icon on the Outlook toolbar,
that MRU list will be pointing to folders in the PST rather than in the
mailbox. If the user has same-named folders each place, the items will
"disappear" from the mailbox folder into the PST folder.
You'll probably have to ask the users to look at their Outlook rules in case
any of those point to the PSTs.
When you're all finished, you may want to re-run the SBS backup wizard
and/or verify that Exchange is being backed up properly, and also to verify
the deleted item retention settings in the properties of both information
stores, public and private (mailbox).
"Whiz Dunbar" <Whiz.Dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:43babbe9$0$19681$8fcfb975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> So, Dave, based on your comments, I could, I think,
> - go to each user's Outlook
> - turn off the alternative PST store in the account settings
> - view the two mailboxes : Exchange mailbox and PST mailbox
> - slide or move all the stuff from the PST mailbox into the Exchange
> mailbox
>
> Please confirm if that sounds reasonable.
>
> Whiz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Whiz Dunbar" <Whiz.Dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de
> news: 43bab71e$0$29181$8fcfb975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Thanks, Dave.
>> Whiz
>>
>>
>> "Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]" <gwdibble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans
>> le message de news: e2psnuIEGHA.916@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Some general comments:
>>>
>>> - Using PST files over a network is unsupported and should be avoided.
>>> PSTs need to be on the local PC for performance and reliability reasons.
>>> My understanding is that data corruption issues are common with
>>> networked PSTs and that's why MS doesn't support them.
>>>
>>> - Use of PSTs in business networks is discouraged exactly for the reason
>>> you're trying to use them on the server, which is that desktop files are
>>> generally not backed up.
>>>
>>> - You're right that the previous version of Exchange did not accommodate
>>> mailbox restore very elegantly. In the current version, you can restore
>>> the mailbox store to a Recovery Storage Group, then use exmerge to
>>> extract the specific mailbox to a PST, then import it back into the
>>> server mailbox. See
>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824126.
>>> Recovery Storage Groups don't work for public folders, but neither does
>>> the PST solution since all PFs are stored in the server databases.
>>>
>>> - In general, Exchange's Deleted Item Recovery should prevent the need
>>> to restore a mailbox in almost all instances. You should go into the
>>> properties of the Public and Private stores and make sure this is
>>> enabled for a sufficient period to make sure that users can recover
>>> deleted items themselves. IMO the only reason you'd need to do a
>>> restore is in the case of some kind of database corruption or disaster
>>> recovery scenario, in which case you'd want to recover the whole store
>>> anyway. This seems to be pretty rare as Exchange is very robust.
>>>
>>> - Using the server mailboxes instead of PSTs is better for a wealth of
>>> reasons: centralized configuration and maintenance with little or no
>>> admin involvement with Outlook. Mailbox creation and related tasks are
>>> handled by the add user wizard and from AD, so you're not creating PST
>>> files or worrying about where they're located, backup, etc. Also
>>> centralized control of AV and anti-spam solutions outside of user
>>> control, which should reduce virus risk significantly.
>>>
>>> - Cached mode is generally considered a good thing, although IMO the
>>> benefits are more noticeable in larger networks where LAN traffic is
>>> more of an issue. IMO the biggest benefit is that you can use the
>>> Outlook junk mail filter only in cached mode. There are a couple of
>>> potential issues such as certain items taking a while to show up in user
>>> mailboxes, particularly with public folders.
>>>
>>> - Unicode is much better - hugely greater file size limit for one thing,
>>> and supposedly more robust than the old format PSTs. If you
>>> create/share items with Outlook 2003 with Unicode turned on, older
>>> versions of Outlook wont' be able to read them. Hopefully you're
>>> convinced to get rid of the PSTs by now anyway. The answer to your
>>> question AFAIK is that you would have to close the old PSTs in Outlook
>>> and maybe even rename them, so Outlook is not aware of any old-style
>>> PSTs. Create a new Unicode PST and import the items from the old one.
>>> Once you're satisfied that the items transferred OK, delete the old file
>>> after closing it in Outlook. After this, you can r-click your Mailbox
>>> at the top of the Outlook folder list -> Properties. On the General
>>> tab, click Advanced, then go to the Advanced tab there. It should say
>>> "Outlook is running in Unicode mode against the Microsoft Exchange
>>> Server."
>>>
>>> I think that particularly with SBS 2003, you'll find yourself a lot
>>> happier with the messages stored in the server mailbox as Heaven and
>>> Bill Gates intended. Centralized admin, AV, and spam, management
>>> through AD, deleted item and mailbox retention, more robust, less work,
>>> better backup with the SBS backup wizard..... A long list of benefits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Whiz Dunbar" <Whiz.Dunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:43ba8cd8$0$29194$8fcfb975@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is about using PST files with Exchange. It may be a bit long but
>>>> it's quite interesting. And I have 4 questions so I will number them as
>>>> I go along.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We installed our first SBS server back in 1998. SBS 4.x.? Then we got
>>>> a SBS2000.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't know much about Exchange but at that time I read that the best
>>>> (and only) way to restore lost or deleted mailboxes or a dysfunctional
>>>> Exchange server was to have a spare identical server under the desk
>>>> ready to receive and repair the Exchange databases.
>>>>
>>>> Also I realized around that time that it was not possible to restore
>>>> individual mailboxes : everyone would get his mail rolled back after a
>>>> restore because of Careless Joe.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then I discovered PST files and the possibility with Outlook to use the
>>>> personal stores as the user's main mailbox and use the user's Exchange
>>>> mailbox as a transitional box.
>>>>
>>>> So Careless Joe can still wreak havoc in his own mailbox and nobody is
>>>> affected by that.
>>>>
>>>> By design these PST mailboxes were stored on the user's local PC and
>>>> that was OK for a while. Then I discovered that I could put them on the
>>>> SBS server in a big Email Folder with a sub-folder per user and assign
>>>> permissions according to duties and hierarchy etc. That was better, and
>>>> those folders all got stored with the backup. And the Admin knew what
>>>> was where and could move them around when people changed jobs and moved
>>>> on, or out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now I never quite knew what kind of load this was putting on my
>>>> network. Was a client's Outlook actually downloading files from
>>>> Exchange and sending them back to the PST on the SBS server? And then
>>>> having to reload them from the PST? Or was there some kind of name
>>>> resolution going on so that Exchange would shift the mail directly from
>>>> the Exchange database into the PST without sending it down the wire to
>>>> the user's Outlook and back again to the PST?
>>>> That's Question 1. What stress does this solution put on my network?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So now on my new SBS 2003 I have the same setup and I want to know if
>>>> it's a good idea to leave it that way. Or is it downright stupid? Has
>>>> Exchange made so much progress in restore and recovery that I no longer
>>>> need to have this laborious yet useful setup?
>>>>
>>>> That's Question 2. Should I leave things as they are or am I safe with
>>>> Exchange?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also noticed that in Outlook when I set up a new Exchange account I
>>>> have the option or using a "cache". Is that useful, necessary, only for
>>>> remote users? Or is it the best thing since mashed potatoes .
>>>>
>>>> That's Question 3. Should I use the cache option in Outlook ? My users
>>>> have files that are 200 Mo. 400 Mo. 700 Mo. There are 25 users and no
>>>> one wants to archive anything anytime.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I also see that Unicode is causing me a problem now whereas it didn't
>>>> on my SBS2000. Exchange won't let me designate a non Unicode PST for
>>>> receiving messages. So in Outlook now my users have two Inboxes and the
>>>> "transitional" Exchange mailbox is no longer transitional. The mail is
>>>> stuck in there and will not move to the PST mailbox. When I specify the
>>>> user's PST file I get a message about the file not being compatible
>>>> with .ost files. What's all that about?
>>>>
>>>> OK. I realise that one day I will have to convert my PSTS to the
>>>> Unicode compatible version and maybe now would be the best time to do
>>>> it. Is there a tool I can use where I can sneak up on a PST that is
>>>> offline and convert (upgrade it) it from Outlook 97 to Outlook 2003?
>>>>
>>>> That would be handy. Or do I have to use the conversion function from
>>>> the file menu in Outlook?
>>>>
>>>> That's Question 4. If my PST solution is still a viable and useful
>>>> option, how should I go about upgrading all those files?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any help.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whiz Dunbar
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- Using PST files with Exchange and Outlook
- From: Whiz Dunbar
- Re: Using PST files with Exchange and Outlook
- From: Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]
- Re: Using PST files with Exchange and Outlook
- From: Whiz Dunbar
- Re: Using PST files with Exchange and Outlook
- From: Whiz Dunbar
- Using PST files with Exchange and Outlook
- Prev by Date: Re: SBS 2003 Premium and SBA 2006
- Next by Date: Re: Migration from SBS to 2003 Enterprise Server - Exchange Disaster?
- Previous by thread: Re: Using PST files with Exchange and Outlook
- Next by thread: all incoming mail is being blocked
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
