Hello, I'm using Exchange 2000 on a Windows 2000 Adv Srvr box with individual mailbox size limits set at 200mb. I have been in the practice of advising users to archive "must keep" mailbox data to Personal folders pointing to a PST residing on a network share so backups can be made on tapes. If they were to archive their data into Public Folders instead of a PST what would be the pros and cons of each? By moving their data to either Public Folders or to a PST reduces their own mailbox size which is the goal but I'm not sure which is better. I also do advise users to not exceed 500mb in PST size due to possible corruption. Thanks....
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:57:28 -0800, "bsbm525" wrote: >Hello, > >I'm using Exchange 2000 on a Windows 2000 Adv Srvr box with individual >mailbox size limits set at 200mb. I have been in the practice of advising >users to archive "must keep" mailbox data to Personal folders pointing to a >PST residing on a network share so backups can be made on tapes. >If they were to archive their data into Public Folders instead of a PST what >would be the pros and cons of each? By moving their data to either Public >Folders or to a PST reduces their own mailbox size which is the goal but I'm >not sure which is better. I also do advise users to not exceed 500mb in PST >size due to possible corruption. >Thanks.... PST's are a bloody awful idea and I would never recommend them unless you simply cannot increase space on the Exchange server. PST's over the network are asking for trouble and keeping them below 500MB isn't a worthwhile compromise. Archiving mail to a PF merely indicates that you have space on your server. If that's the case then just the space for the mailbox store(s) and stop using the PST's Your post has contradictions in it, if you think a little deeper.
