Need solution to a huge amount of email

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tony
  • Start date Start date
T

Tony

One of my clients is using outlook 2007 with an exchange server
account.
The problem is that he wants to keep all email he sends and receives.
At the moment his ost file is 8gb and I have 3 archive pst files of
19gb 8gb and 4gb. All this is causing outlook to run slow and crash
quite a lot. What I need to do is archive everything that is more the
maybe 1 month old. This would free the ost to about 600mb. The problem
is that he would still want to view the archives and this will still
make outlook slow. I need it so he has 1 months worth of email and
the rest archive which he can view. I can only think of running
another machine and putting outlook with the archive on that, is this
a good solution? Or is it possible to run outlook with a different
profile just containing the archive? Amy help would be appreciated.
Thanks
In advance
Tony
 
Do these archives and current personal folders include sizable attachments?
if so there are many third party tools that remove the attachment and store
them outside the data file, on HD, whilst maintaing a link in the origonal
mail
An ost of 8gb should not cause problems nor should haveing archives open
The pst's are stored on the local drive, not network?
 
Hi DL
Yes they do have lots of attachments. The archives are on the local
drive. The inbox data is stored on the server but I think downloads to
a local ost file.
Thanks
Tony
 
Hi DL
Yes they do have lots of attachments. The archives are on the local
drive. The inbox data is stored on the server but I think downloads to
a local ostfile.
Thanks
Tony
Click to expand...

Hi Tony,
I would suggest archive all old email to msg files. And if he likes,
archive recent msg files as well.
archiving email as msg file can be compared with saving your
worddocument. Just every document as one file.
Windows destop search and Google Desktop search can find all
information in the msg files.
You can even move all msg files to a DVD. There is no problem opening
msg file from a read only drive.
Saving a pst file on a DVD is only for archiving, if you want to use
the pst file, you need to copy it again to a hard drive.
Outlook will never be slow again: the exchange will be very empty and
you don't need the huge pst files.
Besides, when you archive every email as msg file, you can easy split
your archive. Old projects, old customers can be moved to other parts
(or DVD). Active projects can be kept on the file server.
You can take a look at http://www.slipstick.com/ for Outlook add ins,
e.g. mail to file (http://www.mailtofile.com/).
Regards,
Jean
 
I would suggest archive all old email to msg files.
Click to expand...

I think this is poor advice. Mine would be to create more Archive PSTs, one
per year, for example.
 
Thanks Brian.
I do have yearly archives but outllok is running so slow and crashed
quite a lot, it then take about 2 hours to do a file check. Are you
saying its the OST file that making it all run slow, not the archives?
Thanks
Tony
 
Athony said:
I do have yearly archives but outllok is running so slow and crashed
quite a lot, it then take about 2 hours to do a file check. Are you
saying its the OST file that making it all run slow, not the archives?
Click to expand...

There are a number of things that might make Outlook 2007 slow. You might
want to look at http://www.slipstick.com/outlook/ol2007/slow.htm . If this
happened to me, I'd start with a new mail profile, make sure I was using
Outlook in Cached Exchange mode and that the connection to Exchange was
Unicode. I'd also rebuild the OST by deleting the existing one before
starting Outlook.
 
Hi Brian
I renamed the ost and restarted out look and it would not run. I have
renamed it back and it runs but wont connect to exchange now? any
ideas.
 
Athony said:
I renamed the ost and restarted out look and it would not run. I have
renamed it back and it runs but wont connect to exchange now? any
ideas.
Click to expand...

Did you try a new mail profile, as I also suggested? DId you take a look at
the web page I cited?
 
Back
Top