Outlook and the workplace

[mikeymikec]

Considering that I've been waiting for an Outlook PST file (9GB in size) to finish compacting for more than three hours now (judging by process disk activity it is still working on it), I'm a bit surprised that Outlook is considered to be a reasonable choice in the workplace. Admittedly running scanpst on that file didn't take half as long, but it seems to me like Outlook PST file problems are a real block to workflow because a) they take a long time to process and b) Outlook stores everything in one file typically so everything stops if that PST file stops working.

Does anyone have any tactics for avoiding or offsetting the problem? AutoArchive might help offset the possibility that workflow is affected (and the file currently in question is the archive file), but setting AutoArchive too aggressively might also end up in workflow problems resulting from a corrupt PST file, and running the compact/scanpst operation on a machine with a strong processor in terms of single threading as well as an SSD would help (the one I'm running it on right now has a mobile C2D and an SSD).

I suppose another possibility is to use IMAP/Exchange so that the PST file is almost completely expendable but that isn't necessarily a viable option in every workplace.

 

[Mushkins]

How often are you legitimately interacting with a PST file though. When we still had POP users with gigs of email, it was maybe once a month tops someone had an issue out of a sizable number of users. Yeah they suck, but they're better than nothing. Any mail client has to store mail *somewhere*.

If you want more reliable setup, Exchange is the answer. Hosted exchange is extremely affordable these days even for small businesses.

 

[mikeymikec]

How often are you legitimately interacting with a PST file though.

I'm not sure what you mean. Outlook requires a PST file to operate (excepting setups where an ost file is used, but it's basically the same thing AFAIK). Without it, Outlook cannot run normally.

When we still had POP users with gigs of email, it was maybe once a month tops someone had an issue out of a sizable number of users. Yeah they suck, but they're better than nothing. Any mail client has to store mail *somewhere*.

But no other mail client I'm aware of has problems that waste anywhere near as much time as Outlook. Most mail clients store separate files on a per-mail-folder basis, so in many cases one could substitute the corrupted file and work on it separately while allowing the end user to continue working with (mostly) their normal mail setup.

I think you're basically suggesting one of the things I had already suggested: Use IMAP/Exchange.

At least I think I know why this compact is taking so long - a ~9GB file is being compacted down to below 3GB. I'm just amazed that Outlook (2007 anyway) apparently does not have its own mechanism for ensuring this gets done automatically on a regular enough basis to avoid occurrences like this happening; every other modern client I'm aware of does.

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Does Outlook 2016 automatically compact the PST? I didn't think that happened on any version although it probably should.

 

[mikeymikec]

I wonder whether there is an auto-compact system in place because I've seen PST files take literally seconds to compact, but just like the auto-defragging system in Windows has its shortcomings (eg. it rarely gets triggered if a user is in the habit of using their system briefly then shutting down as soon as they're finished), I wonder whether Outlook does as well. However, the user of this pst file strikes me as someone who uses e-mail more than just light/casual.

That PST file ended up compacting down to 1GB Took about 7 hours in total. TBH the main reason why I decided to compact it in the first place was that I hoped to shave down the data transfer rate over USB 2.0, and I expected the compact to take somewhat less time than scanpst did.

- edit - Outlook 2016 auto-compact - no idea.

- edit 2 - I found this on the Internet:
http://www.outlook-tips.net/tips/tip-915-compact-time-exit-outlook/

Outlook will automatically compact the data file when the “white space” reaches around 20% of the data file’s size and the computer is idle. Because it runs as a background service, it can take days for Outlook to fully compact the pst file. (This is a great reason to keep Outlook open when the computer is running.)

 

[BurnItDwn]

Outlook is garbage, but, it is shiny and sparkly and upper management types love it since they rarely scratch more than the surface for anything.

 

[Ketchup]

I love Outlook in the work environment, but I still use Thunderbird for home. I just don't need the frills, and it is lighter. As far as the pst file, what exactly is the problem? Are you running out of space? Yeah, the file can get big. But it's all relative. Most new computers come with a terabyte, so a couple gigs off the pst is just a drop in the bucket anyway.

 

[Binky]

I have emails going back to 2002 and that set of PST's is only ~7GB. Maybe you're just a hoarder.

 

[nerp]

I love Outlook. It's the only client that can handle my workload and volume. Every other app just buckles under the pressure.

 

[mikeymikec]

As far as the pst file, what exactly is the problem?

The original problem was that all ~4000 e-mails disappeared from the archive inbox (other folders in the archive were unaffected). scanpst didn't fix it. Luckily we had a recent enough backup, but that also needed scanpst before it would allow us to import (so two scanpst operations that totalled about 2 hours waiting time, then the compact unexpectedly taking ~7 hours).

I have emails going back to 2002 and that set of PST's is only ~7GB. Maybe you're just a hoarder.

a) it's not mine and b) it very much depends on the average size of e-mails one receives. I personally don't receive many attachments, and with Thunderbird I can just detach them and store them in the file system rather than deleting the e-mail outright.

 

[sbpromania]

I've been using Outlook and Thunderbird until now (although in different scenarios), and until this point I can't decide for any of them, I'd rather get a combination of the 2.

That being said, PST files are indeed a mess, I remember trying to fix corrupt PSTs, awful.

 

[yinan]

That is why most places disable PSTs. They are evil on all sorts of levels, but Outlook itself other than that is quite nice. There is no real need for PSTs anymore

 

[CSMR]

I've been waiting for an Outlook PST... I'm a bit surprised that Outlook is considered to be a reasonable choice in the workplace...
I suppose another possibility is to use IMAP/Exchange so that the PST file is almost completely expendable but that isn't necessarily a viable option in every workplace.

Almost all workplaces use Exchange. Outlook+Exchange is the best. I pay for Exchange just for personal use (easy with O365). In what situation is it not viable?

 

[mikeymikec]

That is why most places disable PSTs. They are evil on all sorts of levels, but Outlook itself other than that is quite nice. There is no real need for PSTs anymore

What do you mean by disabling PSTs?

 

[yinan]

What do you mean by disabling PSTs?

Apply a GPO so that users cannot create them. With an archive mailbox and OWA there really isn't a need for PSTs. All PSTs do is eat up network drive space.

 

[mikeymikec]

Apply a GPO so that users cannot create them. With an archive mailbox and OWA there really isn't a need for PSTs. All PSTs do is eat up network drive space.

Ah, so you're basically saying "don't use Outlook"?

 

[yinan]

No I am not. Use outlook but use it online or with cached mode enabled, but disable PST creation. There is no need for them anymore.