My comments inline. I hate PSTs but by focusing on the micro issues, I
think you're missing the bigger picture.
Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP
Tech Consultant
Compaq Computer Corporation (soon to be HP)
All your base are belong to us.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of msxlist
Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 4:07 PM
To: Exchange Discussions
Subject: PST, OSTor IS message storage
dear all,
somehow i've managed to get in to a philisophical discussion about the
best place to store messages. my opinion has always been that the IS (or
an OST) is the place. my colleague prefers PST's.
i think there was a thread in days gone by which discussed the pros/cons,
or maybe there is a FAQ on this.
off the top of my head, the "bad things" about PSTs are:
- loose single instance store
>>> As opposed to tight single instance store?
- increase storage requires (rtf + plain text)
>>> That probably doesn't amount to much. The text part of messages is
usually overwhelmed size-wise by the attachments.
- exposed to corruption and performance degradation if pst > 512Mb
>>> I don't know if 512MB is a magic number or not.
- loose ability to manually scan for PST-resident virus infections
>>> As opposed to tight ability? Some workstation client programs will scan
e-mail, and I take that to mean that they'll scan a PST.
- increase bandwidth - eg 10 messages over WAN to 10 clients, rather than
1 message over WAN to server, then 10 messages to clients over LAN
increased reliance on scarce/expensive, inherently less reliable WAN
capacity
>>> Not really. Messages download to the client with either method. The
workstation has to get the message to read it. Regardless of whether you
use a PST, all users have a mailbox that is the point of initial delivery,
presuming that you are using Exchange Server, and that's a fair assumption
since this is an Exchange discussion list. In fact you could argue that
PSTs reduce network bandwidth because messages are transmitted over the wire
between the server and the client once only and subsequent reads of messages
are local to the client.
- loss of access to mailbox manager functionality
- security exposure - lost notebook with PSTs much more likely to give
access to stored email than server resident mailbox
>>> If there's an OST on the workstation, then the same data is there. If
the PST is password-protected, then there isn't a whole lot of difference in
security, I don't think.
- more to configure in profile
>>> Big deal.
- not all rules will work (server side vs client side)
>>> Not true. It's just when they'll work. Server-side rules fire when the
message is delivered to the mailbox. Client-side rules fire when the user
starts his client.
- if a machine crashes, and the PST is in the default location, mail goes
with it. likewise, finding and saving the PST/PAB is another thing to do
during PC cascades
>>> This is better expressed by "Users never back up their own data. A
workstation hard disk failure is likely to take e-mail with it."
- storage is more efficient with automatated whitespace recovery on the
IS, but no way to centrally manage PST compaction
the "good things" i can think of are:
- users become responsible for their own storage limits (do they really ?
will they not just lob their PST on to a network drive and make the file
system backup bigger, rather than the exchange server backup ?)
>>> No, they'll still come crying to you to get their mail back if they
screw it up or have a failure. It just becomes a bigger pain in your ass.
- if the PST is on a network drive, mailbox-by-mailbox restores are
relatively easy.
>>> A PST on a network drive is just plain stupid. You need to explain why
this is the case. If you want network drive PSTs, you might as well go back
to Microsoft Mail. It's much the same thing. You're reverting back from a
database-oriented e-mail store to a file-based e-mail store.
- In moving mailboxes from one org to another, one of the first steps is
to get user messages out in to a PST. If you work with PSTs anyway, you�ve
got a head start.
>>> To get from New York to London, you need to board a plane. If you live
on the plane, you've got a head start.
Paul
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________
List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
