Our Outlook PST Files are Too Big
Jason Dunn is a great friend:
Saw your blog post. Yup, 2 GB limit. Solution? Archive PST, just like you’ve probably always had for keeping your PST file size down. If there’s really 2 GB of data that you absolutely need on the server at all times, then yeah, I guess hosted Exchange isn’t for you (I don’t know if any solution is).
Myself, I run at around 1.5 GB in my OST. I have an offline archive, but I’ve found that deleting the attachments on some of my sent items (99% of the time they’re files that are already on my local drive) is a super fast way to free up storage. Slight hassle, but not too bad. Or you can just archive them. I have 24,735 messages in my sent items folder on the server, going back to September 2005. So I can search two years back, immediately…hard to beat that.
Yeah, try convincing Ponzi to detatch those attachments… you’d be the third person who isn’t me to suggest such a thing. :)
Oh, so this is a Ponzi issue…well that changes everything. ;-) Are you using Outlook 2007 Ponzi? You can configure it to auto-archive messages in your Sent Item folder older than “x” days, where “x” is the break-point for where you REALLY think you need to have it on the server and be searchable. I also find that if I go into my sent items and sort by size, I quite often see the biggest files are email messages I’ve sent that have the same content – my advertising information for instance. Deleting that has zero impact on my operations, because their response to that (without the big attachments) is the important part.
So, Ponzi finally jumped into the thread:
Oh, I guess an example would help. For instance – large item is our scanned documents of a potential house buy that fell through. There were several relationships around that transaction that I need to keep track of though they aren’t friends. I need to make sure I have each of the copies as each one has minor changes. Though if I move them from that email I can’t remember the conversation around what changes were made to that particular doc.
And Jason responded:
Sure – so this in case, I’d created a folder in your archive.pst file and move them down to the local hard drive. They’re still there for reference, but they’re not up on the server.
And Ponzi responded:
Oh my gosh, now this just got even stickier than I thought it would be. I hear I need to go through all my messages and unattach items etc. I’m so worried I won’t be able to find something, unless I can search by email. Are there any solutions that could help with this? Chris tells me to tag but I can’t always remember in the same ways as him so it’s harder to locate later. Without copernic desktop search (when we’re on the road) I like to search through email because it puts the item in context because I can see the conversation around that particular attachment. Any ideas how I can separate my large attachments but keep the context?
There’s no simple solution in sight, it seems. We’ll likely be getting some kind of network storage at some point in the near future, which may or may not help. Recommendations welcome.
Optimize 3.0 is an excellent tool to have in your arsenal. Use it to clean up your computer, free up space by removing junk files, and to generally speed up your computer. You spend a lot of time using your machine... don't you want it to run at its optimum speed and efficiency?









17 Comments
The Chris Pirillo Show
August 27th, 2007
at 7:05am
[IMG] Chris Pirillo Frankfurt, Germany – European Blogger Meetup?Our Outlook PST Files are Too BigFree Universal Contact Management with Plaxo Shopping Coupons for Labor Day Weekend Mac OS X Leopard vs Microsoft Windows Vista 32-Bit Windows and 4GB of RAM Does it make pfSense to wear SSH SOCKS?
oli
August 31st, 2007
at 8:31pm
I hope I’m not wrong, but from what I know, Outlook 2003 or newer can manage PSTs over 2GB.
But if you created your PST file with an older version, then it’s limited to 2GB.
There’s a solution if you have Outlook 2003 or newer: just to create a brand new PST using the 2003 format, then copy everything from your old PST to the new one. And you’re done.
Hope it will help.
Nicholas
August 31st, 2007
at 11:17pm
Or, why not make multiple PST’s and split up your e-mail/filters? I currently run three different ones, with one dedicated to personal, another to business and the last to my blog.
Tim Tabor
September 1st, 2007
at 2:17am
Here’s an unlimited plan.
http://www.exchangemailhosting.com/exchange/plans/
Cheers.
Gary Petersen
September 1st, 2007
at 1:27pm
If file attachments in Outlook are part of the problem with large file sizes, and they are for me at work too, try Attachment Save by Sperry Software, here:
http://www.sperrysoftware.com/Outlook/Attachment-Save.asp
It saves files attached to Outlook messages to a folder on your hard drive that you get to specify and replaces them in the message with an active link. You can run it on existing messages and configure it to run automatically on incoming mail.
Works great.
Chris
September 1st, 2007
at 9:39pm
I don’t understand why PST’s are even an issue if your going to be using Exchange, most likely a hosted exchange service will be using the Enterprise edition in which the mailstore limit is 16TB if memory serves me right. PST’s really only come into play when your using pop3, otherwise everything resides on the exchange server in the mailstore.
E. Douglas Jensen
September 2nd, 2007
at 6:44am
If you like Copernic, you’ll love Isys Desktop Search and dt Search. Isys is especially good and being able to construct or reconstruct all sort of conversations or relationships about email messages and files, no matter how or where they are stored.
Joe DeAngelo
September 2nd, 2007
at 10:34am
I’ve been running Outlook 2003 for about 3 years now under WIN/XP and have had severe performance issues as soon as the PST size grows larger than about 800M. I’m reasonable certain of this because the problem disappeared after I went on a rampage destroying email with large attachments and compactifying the PST. I would hate to think of how it would work if I were to let it approach 2GB. I only have 1GB of storage on this puppy so mabe that is the caue.
Chris
September 2nd, 2007
at 12:35pm
Clean out your sent items & along with your deleted items. Can’t tell you how many times when troubleshooter a user’s account – that fixed it.
Depending on the format of the house documents (such as PDF) – might be about to reduced the size of the file, and reattach to said email.
Good Luck!
alphaxion
September 6th, 2007
at 6:08am
This is a constant problem at work with our users.
We have quotas in place that limits our staff to 100mb of email (unless a director or their job function requires a greater limit) annd we are constantly battling people who demand more storage when their job doesn’t warrent it.
PST files are something to try and avoid as much as possible (something like 30% of the company I work fors data on our san comprises of pst files!) because they corrupt easily, if they aren’t on a network storage that is backed up it’s easy to lose the file in some way (deletion, hardware failure of the drive it’s on etc) and it’s taking the data away from a central location and means should you wish to access that data on say a mobile device or thru webmail you’re screwed :(
The problem here is that email has grown beyond its initial conception and people are using them to either keep all communication indefinately and simply not spending time to maintain their mailbox or use it as a massive file store and as a replacement for old technologies such as ftp.
People are relying upon email as a source in legal battles too, even tho email is so easy to fake and has zero security about it (pretty much most of the traffic is easily snoopable). People are always stunned when I tell them that there is never a garauntee that an email will ever make it to its destination – they just believe that you click and it arrives, any NDR they get seems to always be 100% our email systems fault (even tho the NDR tells them why it failed, which 99% of people never bother to read anyway) in their eyes.
Couple this with the spam issue (our latest stats put legitimate email in our company at about 3.4% of all incoming mail traffic!) and it has just left me thinking that email is simply broken and distorted completely beyond it’s original idea and we definately need to find an alternative that can do what people expect from email without half of the structural problems that email seems to have.
alphaxion
September 7th, 2007
at 2:03am
sorry if this is a double post, rather weirdly it’s showing up on my work pc but not on any other pc I view this on :S
This is a constant problem at work with our users.
We have quotas in place that limits our staff to 100mb of email (unless a director or their job function requires a greater limit) annd we are constantly battling people who demand more storage when their job doesn’t warrent it.
PST files are something to try and avoid as much as possible (something like 30% of the company I work fors data on our san comprises of pst files!) because they corrupt easily, if they aren’t on a network storage that is backed up it’s easy to lose the file in some way (deletion, hardware failure of the drive it’s on etc) and it’s taking the data away from a central location and means should you wish to access that data on say a mobile device or thru webmail you’re screwed :(
The problem here is that email has grown beyond its initial conception and people are using them to either keep all communication indefinately and simply not spending time to maintain their mailbox or use it as a massive file store and as a replacement for old technologies such as ftp.
People are relying upon email as a source in legal battles too, even tho email is so easy to fake and has zero security about it (pretty much most of the traffic is easily snoopable). People are always stunned when I tell them that there is never a garauntee that an email will ever make it to its destination – they just believe that you click and it arrives, any NDR they get seems to always be 100% our email systems fault (even tho the NDR tells them why it failed, which 99% of people never bother to read anyway) in their eyes.
Couple this with the spam issue (our latest stats put legitimate email in our company at about 3.4% of all incoming mail traffic!) and it has just left me thinking that email is simply broken and distorted completely beyond it’s original idea and we definately need to find an alternative that can do what people expect from email without half of the structural problems that email seems to have.
GoodThings2Life
September 9th, 2007
at 6:09am
First of all, Outlook 2007 offers some fantastic benefits in the performance realm. It can handle larger PST loads than previous versions.
Second, Outlook 2003 and 2007 can support up to 20GB PST files, not 2GB (the limit for 2002 and earlier).
Third, for Exchange server users, consider a solution like GFI Mail Archiver… it can archive all messages to an SQL database and then use Exchange retention policies to keep your mailbox clean. May not be an option for your hosted Exchange setups, though, depending on how flexible the host is.
andyjos
October 19th, 2007
at 5:56pm
Thanks GoodThings2Life for your comment regarding Outlook 2003 and 2007 and their ability to support PST files in excess of 2GBs (I didn’t know they could up to 20GB – wow!). I had been reading this post and thought I was crazy being that my PST files with Outlook 2003 were around 3.8 GBs and everybody on this post had been saying it was not possible. Thanks!
Raymond
November 29th, 2007
at 8:37pm
What I do is I have separate PST file for each month. PST file as large as 2GB would be so slow.
JimTech
January 2nd, 2008
at 8:39am
Hi, I like your idea of separate pst files for each month, but how to set it up to do that automatically?
I have 150+ laptop users on an Exchange server who are all struggling with Outlook 2000 and V-large PST files. If I could set up a system whereby they archive AUTOMATICALLY to a new pst file each month, then problem would be solved, and much af the hassle I deal with would dissolve away!
multiple pst files with Copernic - Web - Copernic
June 2nd, 2008
at 5:34am
[...] Results) 1|2|3|4|5 Next > Are you looking for? No Suggestions Found. 1. Our Outlook PST Files are Too Big ~ Chri… … you’ve probably always had for keeping your PST file … Without copernic desktop search [...]
zlatan24
August 24th, 2008
at 1:47am
Where is fine tool-pst file reader,
can read corrupted files of PST and OST format and save emails, works with all supported versions of Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft Windows, supports data extraction as separate files in *.eml, *.vcf and *.txt format, they will be placed to any folder upon your choice, the size of every single output PST file will not exceed 1Gb, can work with very large files,is so easy, that even inexperienced users can easily work with this program.