pst file.

  • Thread starter Thread starter rhaasan
  • Start date Start date
rhaasan said:
Either i guess ansi is still 2gb but what is unicode?
Click to expand...

Unicode is the new Outlook 2003/2007 format. If your pst file was created by
Outlook 2003, then it will be in Unicode format unless you told it
otherwise.
Unicode Format pst files can be several Terabytes in size....
 
in message
...

It's configurable but the default is set at 20GB.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832925
Click to expand...

And the default is the maximum size. You can make it smaller. You
cannot make it larger. From the KB article:

Name: MaxLargeFileSize
Type: REG_DWORD
Valid Data Range: 0x00000001 - 0x000050000
Default: x00005000 20,480 (20 GB)

So the default maximum file size is already the maximum in the range.
 
...

Unicode is the new Outlook 2003/2007 format. If your pst file was
created by Outlook 2003, then it will be in Unicode format unless
you told it otherwise. Unicode Format pst files can be several
Terabytes in size....
Click to expand...

Nope. 20GB is the maximum size (see my other post).
 
VanguardLH said:
And the default is the maximum size. You can make it smaller. You cannot
make it larger. From the KB article:

Name: MaxLargeFileSize
Type: REG_DWORD
Valid Data Range: 0x00000001 - 0x000050000
Default: x00005000 20,480 (20 GB)

So the default maximum file size is already the maximum in the range.
Click to expand...

I have never manually tweaked the size so I don't know what the result would
be if we put a larger number (> 20480).
 
VanguardLH said:
in message news:[email protected]...

Nope. 20GB is the maximum size (see my other post).
Click to expand...


No it's not - from the bottom of the KB page:
"Note You can set the UNICODE limits beyond the values that are listed in
the table. However, we do not recommend doing this because performance can
decrease"
 
Gordon said:
No it's not - from the bottom of the KB page:
"Note You can set the UNICODE limits beyond the values that are
listed in the table. However, we do not recommend doing this because
performance can decrease"
Click to expand...


Yep, you are right that the physical maximum can be set to a much
higher value. I wouldn't recommend it, though. I don't recommend
putting a 600HP V8 into a Geo Metro to make a suicide car (screech,
zoom, SPLAT). It's up the user if they want to configure outside the
valid data range for PST file size. There are plenty of folks that
like to tweak with the TCP configuration in the registry and then have
to figure out why it doesn't work anymore.

You first run into the 2TG limit (for both file and volume size) after
which you have to use dynamic volumes to get up to the 256GB limit
(and using a non-standard 65K cluster size; 16TB if you use the
standard 4K cluster size). Very few users employ dynamic volumes.
Except for extreme rare setups, you'll won't get more than 2TB for the
size of the PST file. The user might also want portability to move
their .pst file onto storage media which only supports FAT32 so the
max file size there is 4GB (and only 2GB for FAT16).

Due to the indexing for the records within the Unicode-enabled
database (i.e., its records can handle multi-byte Unicode characters),
I'm sure there is a pretty good reason why performance would
significantly drop for a PST database file that exceeds 20GB, and it
probably drops exponentially. You could probably run an inadequate
computer using Vista's Aero desktop and enable all visual gimmickry
but that doesn't mean you'll be happy with the lack of responsiveness
from that host. Also, there is no PST4GB.exe, PST20GB.exe, or
PST2TB.exe repair utilities. The bigger the PST file, the more likely
the user will lose data and a LOT more data, too. I don't recommend
going outside the recommended range of values. I wouldn't be
surprised if there is a gotcha that Microsoft isn't revealing about
PST files that exceed 20GB. Considering that a 1-byte change to a 2TB
..pst file would require it all get backed up even in an incremental
[logical file] backup, those backups could take ages to complete.

If the user had 4GB of e-mail, personally I think it is about time
that user rethinks what e-mails they need to keep and start consider
using archiving.
 
VanguardLH said:
If the user had 4GB of e-mail, personally I think it is about time that
user rethinks what e-mails they need to keep and start consider using
archiving.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - I would say that's about twice as much as anybody ordinarily
needs to keep...
 
Back
Top