RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Being a home and road office worker with DSL, I've really come to love Outlook 11 and Exchange 2003, both of which, by the way, are required to make the cache mode (Use local copy) work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith If the user is working offline consistently and synchronizing periodically, I don't see why you'd have an issue. I've set up large numbers of users to work this way in the past. While Outlook 11 does offer some enhancements, working offline with an OST is a pretty common scenario. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:34 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Actually cache mode works fine with Exchange 5.5 (I'm using it that way home and office) and Exchange 2000. You just are restricted to Full Items sync when you do it that way. Exchange 2003 is required to support drizzle mode (Headers and then Full Items). Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 13:38 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Being a home and road office worker with DSL, I've really come to love Outlook 11 and Exchange 2003, both of which, by the way, are required to make the cache mode (Use local copy) work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith If the user is working offline consistently and synchronizing periodically, I don't see why you'd have an issue. I've set up large numbers of users to work this way in the past. While Outlook 11 does offer some enhancements, working offline with an OST is a pretty common scenario. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:34 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Yeah, it's largely transparent. The old way requires a little too much attention from users. I disliked having to synchronize all the time, so I've never used it regularly. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ben Schorr Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Actually cache mode works fine with Exchange 5.5 (I'm using it that way home and office) and Exchange 2000. You just are restricted to Full Items sync when you do it that way. Exchange 2003 is required to support drizzle mode (Headers and then Full Items). Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, MVP-OneNote, CNA, MCPx4 Director of Information Services Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert http://www.hawaiilawyer.com -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 13:38 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Being a home and road office worker with DSL, I've really come to love Outlook 11 and Exchange 2003, both of which, by the way, are required to make the cache mode (Use local copy) work. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP Freelance E-Mail Philosopher Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!T -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Scharff Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith If the user is working offline consistently and synchronizing periodically, I don't see why you'd have an issue. I've set up large numbers of users to work this way in the past. While Outlook 11 does offer some enhancements, working offline with an OST is a pretty common scenario. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:34 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Without going directly into the OST/PST discussion I would suggest to look at the new Outlook 11 coming up on the horizon. A lot of new features have to do with slow links. ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: Neil Doody [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:34 AM Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
how can a 256meg pipe be bad? - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
a couple of p2p servers;) - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 08:08 Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Lol, yeah, even if it was a 256KB pipe, that's still 2048kbit, 2mb pipes up and down the country, don't think I could give a toss about offline folders ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 13:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot of bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our production data center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal applications, and 256k disappears quickly. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith how can a 256meg pipe be bad? - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
The end that's got the Exchange box ;) -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:09 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Try 6MB ATM[1], which is the current standard for our larger office connectivity. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. [1] Actually, its 3MB CIR with a 6MB port speed. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Lol, yeah, even if it was a 256KB pipe, that's still 2048kbit, 2mb pipes up and down the country, don't think I could give a toss about offline folders ;) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 13:09 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith what is the right end of a 256MB pipe? :) -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 12:47 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode= lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Yep. Once they fix some of the bugs, Outlook 11 is the ticket. - Original Message - From: Martin Tuip [MVP] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 5:16 AM Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Without going directly into the OST/PST discussion I would suggest to look at the new Outlook 11 coming up on the horizon. A lot of new features have to do with slow links. ** Please prefix your subject header with BETA for posts dealing with Exchange 2003 ** -- Martin Tuip MVP Exchange Exchange 2000 List owner www.exchange-mail.org www.sharepointserver.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- - Original Message - From: Neil Doody [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:34 AM Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then! In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices with a 256 link back to the main Exch Server and rarely had issues. And we were passing cad files around all day! - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot of bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our production data center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal applications, and 256k disappears quickly. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith how can a 256meg pipe be bad? - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang =english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
God damn, don't talk to me about CAD files. Were a construction company :o Random User : Hello the system is Slow Me : Is anyone receiving any emails? Random User : No Me : Have you checked with the drawing department? And when its over a 64k ISDN line, it doesn't work to well, roll on outlook 11 by the sounds of things. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 09 June 2003 13:24 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then! In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices with a 256 link back to the main Exch Server and rarely had issues. And we were passing cad files around all day! - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot of bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our production data center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal applications, and 256k disappears quickly. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith how can a 256meg pipe be bad? - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
You don't want to know what they're doing. And its not pr0n, either.[1] -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. [1] Not anymore. He was let go a few years ago. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:24 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Tell em to quit browsing all that pron then! In a previous life, we had a few 30 user offices with a 256 link back to the main Exch Server and rarely had issues. And we were passing cad files around all day! - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Trust me. 256k isn't enough for our users. It all depends on the application, and the applications one of these offices support uses a lot of bandwidth between their clients and the servers in our production data center. Tack onto that Internet access, mail, and other internal applications, and 256k disappears quickly. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: David N. Precht [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 7:55 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith how can a 256meg pipe be bad? - Original Message - From: Roger Seielstad [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 07:47 Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Technically, I guess they use more, but I'm not 100% sure. Keep in mind that PST's store mail in 2 formats (so 1 message stored twice), but I think that conversion is done on the client side. I have a number of users using Outlook in offline mode on the wrong end of a 256MB pipe that gets shared with lots of other traffic. Outlook, especially the newer versions, are fairly stingy with network traffic. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis Inc. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 4:34 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Recent conversations have caused me to re-think the entire Exchange strategy that is in place here. The biggest bulk of that strategy includes Backups. The new idea is to go with Item Retention, this highlights the issue that most of the people round here have Personal Folders containing there email, which in turn means that there is no way they are getting backed up. The problem im faced with is that a lot of our sites have only a 64k ISDN link which may be linking 10 people or more! Okay you can scrutinise me for having such a small link for such an amount of users, but hey im not going to pay out of my wages for a larger link ;p Anyway, this problem means that working directly from the Mail Box is out of the question, the next best thing I guess is Offline-Folders. Offline-Folders appear to be the perfect the solution, running a small test over a dial up connection you would think they were the ideal candidate for this situation. However, a colleague informs me that it completely kills the network when you have a few people synchronising folders over an 64k link. Do synchronise folders use more bandwidth than your average Personal Folder? Are there any other issues to consider when using offline folders as apposed to personal folders? Im also informed that when you make a new folder in your mail box it is not automatically synchronised with the server? Please can you give me all your experience and all your info on working with synchronise folders within a working enterprise. No matter how irrelevant you think it may seem, I would like to know exactly what im in for if I move to this solution. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchanget ext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource
RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith
If the user is working offline consistently and synchronizing periodically, I don't see why you'd have an issue. I've set up large numbers of users to work this way in the past. While Outlook 11 does offer some enhancements, working offline with an OST is a pretty common scenario. -Original Message- From: Neil Doody [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Posted At: Monday, June 09, 2003 9:34 AM Posted To: swynk Conversation: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Subject: RE: Sync Folders - Small Bandwith Im guessing then that the main disadvantage with current Offline Folder is the fact that when emails come in you are working from the Mailbox, so you open a large email and its not held in your Offline Folders until you synchronise, that means downloading the email again. Also, what would happen if emails got deleted off the server and people synchronise? The synchronise folders will delete the missing emails from themselves? So as it stands, Offline Folders are not really a viable solution for small bandwidth sites as they leave you working from the mailboxes. By sounds of things, the best use for Offline Folders would be a 15 minute synch interval, but once you have a synch of an email are you working from the synch folder or from the Mailbox when you read them and you are Online? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=; lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchangetext_mode=lang=english To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
