Using PST files with Exchange and Outlook

[Whiz Dunbar]

Hi,


This is about using PST files with Exchange. It may be a bit long but it's
quite interesting. And I have 4 questions so I will number them as I go
along.



We installed our first SBS server back in 1998. SBS 4.x.? Then we got a
SBS2000.

I didn't know much about Exchange but at that time I read that the best (and
only) way to restore lost or deleted mailboxes or a dysfunctional Exchange
server was to have a spare identical server under the desk ready to receive
and repair the Exchange databases.

Also I realized around that time that it was not possible to restore
individual mailboxes : everyone would get his mail rolled back after a
restore because of Careless Joe.



Then I discovered PST files and the possibility with Outlook to use the
personal stores as the user's main mailbox and use the user's Exchange
mailbox as a transitional box.

So Careless Joe can still wreak havoc in his own mailbox and nobody is
affected by that.

By design these PST mailboxes were stored on the user's local PC and that
was OK for a while. Then I discovered that I could put them on the SBS
server in a big Email Folder with a sub-folder per user and assign
permissions according to duties and hierarchy etc. That was better, and
those folders all got stored with the backup. And the Admin knew what was
where and could move them around when people changed jobs and moved on, or
out.



Now I never quite knew what kind of load this was putting on my network. Was
a client's Outlook actually downloading files from Exchange and sending them
back to the PST on the SBS server? And then having to reload them from the
PST? Or was there some kind of name resolution going on so that Exchange
would shift the mail directly from the Exchange database into the PST
without sending it down the wire to the user's Outlook and back again to the
PST?
That's Question 1. What stress does this solution put on my network?



So now on my new SBS 2003 I have the same setup and I want to know if it's a
good idea to leave it that way. Or is it downright stupid? Has Exchange made
so much progress in restore and recovery that I no longer need to have this
laborious yet useful setup?

That's Question 2. Should I leave things as they are or am I safe with
Exchange?



I also noticed that in Outlook when I set up a new Exchange account I have
the option or using a "cache". Is that useful, necessary, only for remote
users? Or is it the best thing since mashed potatoes .

That's Question 3. Should I use the cache option in Outlook ? My users have
files that are 200 Mo. 400 Mo. 700 Mo. There are 25 users and no one wants
to archive anything anytime.



I also see that Unicode is causing me a problem now whereas it didn't on my
SBS2000. Exchange won't let me designate a non Unicode PST for receiving
messages. So in Outlook now my users have two Inboxes and the "transitional"
Exchange mailbox is no longer transitional. The mail is stuck in there and
will not move to the PST mailbox. When I specify the user's PST file I get a
message about the file not being compatible with .ost files. What's all that
about?

OK. I realise that one day I will have to convert my PSTS to the Unicode
compatible version and maybe now would be the best time to do it. Is there a
tool I can use where I can sneak up on a PST that is offline and convert
(upgrade it) it from Outlook 97 to Outlook 2003?

That would be handy. Or do I have to use the conversion function from the
file menu in Outlook?

That's Question 4. If my PST solution is still a viable and useful option,
how should I go about upgrading all those files?



Thanks for any help.



Whiz Dunbar

[Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]]

Some general comments:

- Using PST files over a network is unsupported and should be avoided. PSTs
need to be on the local PC for performance and reliability reasons. My
understanding is that data corruption issues are common with networked PSTs
and that's why MS doesn't support them.

- Use of PSTs in business networks is discouraged exactly for the reason
you're trying to use them on the server, which is that desktop files are
generally not backed up.

- You're right that the previous version of Exchange did not accommodate
mailbox restore very elegantly. In the current version, you can restore the
mailbox store to a Recovery Storage Group, then use exmerge to extract the
specific mailbox to a PST, then import it back into the server mailbox. See
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824126. Recovery
Storage Groups don't work for public folders, but neither does the PST
solution since all PFs are stored in the server databases.

- In general, Exchange's Deleted Item Recovery should prevent the need to
restore a mailbox in almost all instances. You should go into the
properties of the Public and Private stores and make sure this is enabled
for a sufficient period to make sure that users can recover deleted items
themselves. IMO the only reason you'd need to do a restore is in the case
of some kind of database corruption or disaster recovery scenario, in which
case you'd want to recover the whole store anyway. This seems to be pretty
rare as Exchange is very robust.

- Using the server mailboxes instead of PSTs is better for a wealth of
reasons: centralized configuration and maintenance with little or no admin
involvement with Outlook. Mailbox creation and related tasks are handled by
the add user wizard and from AD, so you're not creating PST files or
worrying about where they're located, backup, etc. Also centralized control
of AV and anti-spam solutions outside of user control, which should reduce
virus risk significantly.

- Cached mode is generally considered a good thing, although IMO the
benefits are more noticeable in larger networks where LAN traffic is more of
an issue. IMO the biggest benefit is that you can use the Outlook junk mail
filter only in cached mode. There are a couple of potential issues such as
certain items taking a while to show up in user mailboxes, particularly with
public folders.

- Unicode is much better - hugely greater file size limit for one thing, and
supposedly more robust than the old format PSTs. If you create/share items
with Outlook 2003 with Unicode turned on, older versions of Outlook wont' be
able to read them. Hopefully you're convinced to get rid of the PSTs by now
anyway. The answer to your question AFAIK is that you would have to close
the old PSTs in Outlook and maybe even rename them, so Outlook is not aware
of any old-style PSTs. Create a new Unicode PST and import the items from
the old one. Once you're satisfied that the items transferred OK, delete
the old file after closing it in Outlook. After this, you can r-click your
Mailbox at the top of the Outlook folder list -> Properties. On the General
tab, click Advanced, then go to the Advanced tab there. It should say
"Outlook is running in Unicode mode against the Microsoft Exchange Server."

I think that particularly with SBS 2003, you'll find yourself a lot happier
with the messages stored in the server mailbox as Heaven and Bill Gates
intended. Centralized admin, AV, and spam, management through AD, deleted
item and mailbox retention, more robust, less work, better backup with the
SBS backup wizard..... A long list of benefits.

Post by Whiz Dunbar
Hi,
This is about using PST files with Exchange. It may be a bit long but it's
quite interesting. And I have 4 questions so I will number them as I go
along.
We installed our first SBS server back in 1998. SBS 4.x.? Then we got a
SBS2000.
I didn't know much about Exchange but at that time I read that the best
(and only) way to restore lost or deleted mailboxes or a dysfunctional
Exchange server was to have a spare identical server under the desk ready
to receive and repair the Exchange databases.
Also I realized around that time that it was not possible to restore
individual mailboxes : everyone would get his mail rolled back after a
restore because of Careless Joe.
Then I discovered PST files and the possibility with Outlook to use the
personal stores as the user's main mailbox and use the user's Exchange
mailbox as a transitional box.
So Careless Joe can still wreak havoc in his own mailbox and nobody is
affected by that.
By design these PST mailboxes were stored on the user's local PC and that
was OK for a while. Then I discovered that I could put them on the SBS
server in a big Email Folder with a sub-folder per user and assign
permissions according to duties and hierarchy etc. That was better, and
those folders all got stored with the backup. And the Admin knew what was
where and could move them around when people changed jobs and moved on, or
out.
Now I never quite knew what kind of load this was putting on my network.
Was a client's Outlook actually downloading files from Exchange and
sending them back to the PST on the SBS server? And then having to reload
them from the PST? Or was there some kind of name resolution going on so
that Exchange would shift the mail directly from the Exchange database
into the PST without sending it down the wire to the user's Outlook and
back again to the PST?
That's Question 1. What stress does this solution put on my network?
So now on my new SBS 2003 I have the same setup and I want to know if it's
a good idea to leave it that way. Or is it downright stupid? Has Exchange
made so much progress in restore and recovery that I no longer need to
have this laborious yet useful setup?
That's Question 2. Should I leave things as they are or am I safe with
Exchange?
I also noticed that in Outlook when I set up a new Exchange account I have
the option or using a "cache". Is that useful, necessary, only for remote
users? Or is it the best thing since mashed potatoes .
That's Question 3. Should I use the cache option in Outlook ? My users
have files that are 200 Mo. 400 Mo. 700 Mo. There are 25 users and no one
wants to archive anything anytime.
I also see that Unicode is causing me a problem now whereas it didn't on
my SBS2000. Exchange won't let me designate a non Unicode PST for
receiving messages. So in Outlook now my users have two Inboxes and the
"transitional" Exchange mailbox is no longer transitional. The mail is
stuck in there and will not move to the PST mailbox. When I specify the
user's PST file I get a message about the file not being compatible with
.ost files. What's all that about?
OK. I realise that one day I will have to convert my PSTS to the Unicode
compatible version and maybe now would be the best time to do it. Is there
a tool I can use where I can sneak up on a PST that is offline and convert
(upgrade it) it from Outlook 97 to Outlook 2003?
That would be handy. Or do I have to use the conversion function from the
file menu in Outlook?
That's Question 4. If my PST solution is still a viable and useful option,
how should I go about upgrading all those files?
Thanks for any help.
Whiz Dunbar

[Whiz Dunbar]

Thanks, Dave.
Whiz

Post by Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]
- Using PST files over a network is unsupported and should be avoided.
PSTs need to be on the local PC for performance and reliability reasons.
My understanding is that data corruption issues are common with networked
PSTs and that's why MS doesn't support them.
- Use of PSTs in business networks is discouraged exactly for the reason
you're trying to use them on the server, which is that desktop files are
generally not backed up.
- You're right that the previous version of Exchange did not accommodate
mailbox restore very elegantly. In the current version, you can restore
the mailbox store to a Recovery Storage Group, then use exmerge to extract
the specific mailbox to a PST, then import it back into the server
mailbox. See
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824126. Recovery
Storage Groups don't work for public folders, but neither does the PST
solution since all PFs are stored in the server databases.
- In general, Exchange's Deleted Item Recovery should prevent the need to
restore a mailbox in almost all instances. You should go into the
properties of the Public and Private stores and make sure this is enabled
for a sufficient period to make sure that users can recover deleted items
themselves. IMO the only reason you'd need to do a restore is in the
case of some kind of database corruption or disaster recovery scenario, in
which case you'd want to recover the whole store anyway. This seems to be
pretty rare as Exchange is very robust.
- Using the server mailboxes instead of PSTs is better for a wealth of
reasons: centralized configuration and maintenance with little or no
admin involvement with Outlook. Mailbox creation and related tasks are
handled by the add user wizard and from AD, so you're not creating PST
files or worrying about where they're located, backup, etc. Also
centralized control of AV and anti-spam solutions outside of user control,
which should reduce virus risk significantly.
- Cached mode is generally considered a good thing, although IMO the
benefits are more noticeable in larger networks where LAN traffic is more
of an issue. IMO the biggest benefit is that you can use the Outlook junk
mail filter only in cached mode. There are a couple of potential issues
such as certain items taking a while to show up in user mailboxes,
particularly with public folders.
- Unicode is much better - hugely greater file size limit for one thing,
and supposedly more robust than the old format PSTs. If you create/share
items with Outlook 2003 with Unicode turned on, older versions of Outlook
wont' be able to read them. Hopefully you're convinced to get rid of the
PSTs by now anyway. The answer to your question AFAIK is that you would
have to close the old PSTs in Outlook and maybe even rename them, so
Outlook is not aware of any old-style PSTs. Create a new Unicode PST and
import the items from the old one. Once you're satisfied that the items
transferred OK, delete the old file after closing it in Outlook. After
this, you can r-click your Mailbox at the top of the Outlook folder
list -> Properties. On the General tab, click Advanced, then go to the
Advanced tab there. It should say "Outlook is running in Unicode mode
against the Microsoft Exchange Server."
I think that particularly with SBS 2003, you'll find yourself a lot
happier with the messages stored in the server mailbox as Heaven and Bill
Gates intended. Centralized admin, AV, and spam, management through AD,
deleted item and mailbox retention, more robust, less work, better backup
with the SBS backup wizard..... A long list of benefits.

Post by Whiz Dunbar
Hi,
This is about using PST files with Exchange. It may be a bit long but
it's quite interesting. And I have 4 questions so I will number them as I
go along.
We installed our first SBS server back in 1998. SBS 4.x.? Then we got a
SBS2000.
I didn't know much about Exchange but at that time I read that the best
(and only) way to restore lost or deleted mailboxes or a dysfunctional
Exchange server was to have a spare identical server under the desk ready
to receive and repair the Exchange databases.
Also I realized around that time that it was not possible to restore
individual mailboxes : everyone would get his mail rolled back after a
restore because of Careless Joe.
Then I discovered PST files and the possibility with Outlook to use the
personal stores as the user's main mailbox and use the user's Exchange
mailbox as a transitional box.
So Careless Joe can still wreak havoc in his own mailbox and nobody is
affected by that.
By design these PST mailboxes were stored on the user's local PC and that
was OK for a while. Then I discovered that I could put them on the SBS
server in a big Email Folder with a sub-folder per user and assign
permissions according to duties and hierarchy etc. That was better, and
those folders all got stored with the backup. And the Admin knew what was
where and could move them around when people changed jobs and moved on,
or out.
Now I never quite knew what kind of load this was putting on my network.
Was a client's Outlook actually downloading files from Exchange and
sending them back to the PST on the SBS server? And then having to reload
them from the PST? Or was there some kind of name resolution going on so
that Exchange would shift the mail directly from the Exchange database
into the PST without sending it down the wire to the user's Outlook and
back again to the PST?
That's Question 1. What stress does this solution put on my network?
So now on my new SBS 2003 I have the same setup and I want to know if
it's a good idea to leave it that way. Or is it downright stupid? Has
Exchange made so much progress in restore and recovery that I no longer
need to have this laborious yet useful setup?
That's Question 2. Should I leave things as they are or am I safe with
Exchange?
I also noticed that in Outlook when I set up a new Exchange account I
have the option or using a "cache". Is that useful, necessary, only for
remote users? Or is it the best thing since mashed potatoes .
That's Question 3. Should I use the cache option in Outlook ? My users
have files that are 200 Mo. 400 Mo. 700 Mo. There are 25 users and no one
wants to archive anything anytime.
I also see that Unicode is causing me a problem now whereas it didn't on
my SBS2000. Exchange won't let me designate a non Unicode PST for
receiving messages. So in Outlook now my users have two Inboxes and the
"transitional" Exchange mailbox is no longer transitional. The mail is
stuck in there and will not move to the PST mailbox. When I specify the
user's PST file I get a message about the file not being compatible with
.ost files. What's all that about?
OK. I realise that one day I will have to convert my PSTS to the Unicode
compatible version and maybe now would be the best time to do it. Is
there a tool I can use where I can sneak up on a PST that is offline and
convert (upgrade it) it from Outlook 97 to Outlook 2003?
That would be handy. Or do I have to use the conversion function from the
file menu in Outlook?
That's Question 4. If my PST solution is still a viable and useful
option, how should I go about upgrading all those files?
Thanks for any help.
Whiz Dunbar

[Whiz Dunbar]

So, Dave, based on your comments, I could, I think,
- go to each user's Outlook
- turn off the alternative PST store in the account settings
- view the two mailboxes : Exchange mailbox and PST mailbox
- slide or move all the stuff from the PST mailbox into the Exchange mailbox

Please confirm if that sounds reasonable.

Whiz

Post by Whiz Dunbar
Thanks, Dave.
Whiz

Post by Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]
- Using PST files over a network is unsupported and should be avoided.
PSTs need to be on the local PC for performance and reliability reasons.
My understanding is that data corruption issues are common with networked
PSTs and that's why MS doesn't support them.
- Use of PSTs in business networks is discouraged exactly for the reason
you're trying to use them on the server, which is that desktop files are
generally not backed up.
- You're right that the previous version of Exchange did not accommodate
mailbox restore very elegantly. In the current version, you can restore
the mailbox store to a Recovery Storage Group, then use exmerge to
extract the specific mailbox to a PST, then import it back into the
server mailbox. See
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824126. Recovery
Storage Groups don't work for public folders, but neither does the PST
solution since all PFs are stored in the server databases.
- In general, Exchange's Deleted Item Recovery should prevent the need to
restore a mailbox in almost all instances. You should go into the
properties of the Public and Private stores and make sure this is enabled
for a sufficient period to make sure that users can recover deleted items
themselves. IMO the only reason you'd need to do a restore is in the
case of some kind of database corruption or disaster recovery scenario,
in which case you'd want to recover the whole store anyway. This seems
to be pretty rare as Exchange is very robust.
- Using the server mailboxes instead of PSTs is better for a wealth of
reasons: centralized configuration and maintenance with little or no
admin involvement with Outlook. Mailbox creation and related tasks are
handled by the add user wizard and from AD, so you're not creating PST
files or worrying about where they're located, backup, etc. Also
centralized control of AV and anti-spam solutions outside of user
control, which should reduce virus risk significantly.
- Cached mode is generally considered a good thing, although IMO the
benefits are more noticeable in larger networks where LAN traffic is more
of an issue. IMO the biggest benefit is that you can use the Outlook
junk mail filter only in cached mode. There are a couple of potential
issues such as certain items taking a while to show up in user mailboxes,
particularly with public folders.
- Unicode is much better - hugely greater file size limit for one thing,
and supposedly more robust than the old format PSTs. If you create/share
items with Outlook 2003 with Unicode turned on, older versions of Outlook
wont' be able to read them. Hopefully you're convinced to get rid of the
PSTs by now anyway. The answer to your question AFAIK is that you would
have to close the old PSTs in Outlook and maybe even rename them, so
Outlook is not aware of any old-style PSTs. Create a new Unicode PST and
import the items from the old one. Once you're satisfied that the items
transferred OK, delete the old file after closing it in Outlook. After
this, you can r-click your Mailbox at the top of the Outlook folder
list -> Properties. On the General tab, click Advanced, then go to the
Advanced tab there. It should say "Outlook is running in Unicode mode
against the Microsoft Exchange Server."
I think that particularly with SBS 2003, you'll find yourself a lot
happier with the messages stored in the server mailbox as Heaven and Bill
Gates intended. Centralized admin, AV, and spam, management through AD,
deleted item and mailbox retention, more robust, less work, better backup
with the SBS backup wizard..... A long list of benefits.

Post by Whiz Dunbar
Hi,
This is about using PST files with Exchange. It may be a bit long but
it's quite interesting. And I have 4 questions so I will number them as
I go along.
We installed our first SBS server back in 1998. SBS 4.x.? Then we got a
SBS2000.
I didn't know much about Exchange but at that time I read that the best
(and only) way to restore lost or deleted mailboxes or a dysfunctional
Exchange server was to have a spare identical server under the desk
ready to receive and repair the Exchange databases.
Also I realized around that time that it was not possible to restore
individual mailboxes : everyone would get his mail rolled back after a
restore because of Careless Joe.
Then I discovered PST files and the possibility with Outlook to use the
personal stores as the user's main mailbox and use the user's Exchange
mailbox as a transitional box.
So Careless Joe can still wreak havoc in his own mailbox and nobody is
affected by that.
By design these PST mailboxes were stored on the user's local PC and
that was OK for a while. Then I discovered that I could put them on the
SBS server in a big Email Folder with a sub-folder per user and assign
permissions according to duties and hierarchy etc. That was better, and
those folders all got stored with the backup. And the Admin knew what
was where and could move them around when people changed jobs and moved
on, or out.
Now I never quite knew what kind of load this was putting on my network.
Was a client's Outlook actually downloading files from Exchange and
sending them back to the PST on the SBS server? And then having to
reload them from the PST? Or was there some kind of name resolution
going on so that Exchange would shift the mail directly from the
Exchange database into the PST without sending it down the wire to the
user's Outlook and back again to the PST?
That's Question 1. What stress does this solution put on my network?
So now on my new SBS 2003 I have the same setup and I want to know if
it's a good idea to leave it that way. Or is it downright stupid? Has
Exchange made so much progress in restore and recovery that I no longer
need to have this laborious yet useful setup?
That's Question 2. Should I leave things as they are or am I safe with
Exchange?
I also noticed that in Outlook when I set up a new Exchange account I
have the option or using a "cache". Is that useful, necessary, only for
remote users? Or is it the best thing since mashed potatoes .
That's Question 3. Should I use the cache option in Outlook ? My users
have files that are 200 Mo. 400 Mo. 700 Mo. There are 25 users and no
one wants to archive anything anytime.
I also see that Unicode is causing me a problem now whereas it didn't on
my SBS2000. Exchange won't let me designate a non Unicode PST for
receiving messages. So in Outlook now my users have two Inboxes and the
"transitional" Exchange mailbox is no longer transitional. The mail is
stuck in there and will not move to the PST mailbox. When I specify the
user's PST file I get a message about the file not being compatible with
.ost files. What's all that about?
OK. I realise that one day I will have to convert my PSTS to the Unicode
compatible version and maybe now would be the best time to do it. Is
there a tool I can use where I can sneak up on a PST that is offline and
convert (upgrade it) it from Outlook 97 to Outlook 2003?
That would be handy. Or do I have to use the conversion function from
the file menu in Outlook?
That's Question 4. If my PST solution is still a viable and useful
option, how should I go about upgrading all those files?
Thanks for any help.
Whiz Dunbar

[Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]]

Sounds right. You'd first go to Control Panel -> Mail and set the default
delivery location to the server mailbox. That way, all future mail will go
there instead of the PST. Then drag-and-drop any necessary information from
the PST to the server mailbox (or use File -> Import and Export if it's a
lot of data). Then r-click the PST in the Outlook Folder List and click
Close. That'll keep Outlook from looking for the PST when you start it up.

If you have both Exchange Server and "Personal Folders" in the Outlook
profiles, you can remove Personal Folders.

A painfully learned lesson - consider getting rid of the PSTs by deleting or
renaming them. I've had situations where Outlook items accidentally went to
an old PST due to a rule or an MRU (most recently used) list in Outlook.
For example, if you click the Move to Folder icon on the Outlook toolbar,
that MRU list will be pointing to folders in the PST rather than in the
mailbox. If the user has same-named folders each place, the items will
"disappear" from the mailbox folder into the PST folder.

You'll probably have to ask the users to look at their Outlook rules in case
any of those point to the PSTs.

When you're all finished, you may want to re-run the SBS backup wizard
and/or verify that Exchange is being backed up properly, and also to verify
the deleted item retention settings in the properties of both information
stores, public and private (mailbox).

Post by Whiz Dunbar
So, Dave, based on your comments, I could, I think,
- go to each user's Outlook
- turn off the alternative PST store in the account settings
- view the two mailboxes : Exchange mailbox and PST mailbox
- slide or move all the stuff from the PST mailbox into the Exchange mailbox
Please confirm if that sounds reasonable.
Whiz

Post by Whiz Dunbar
Thanks, Dave.
Whiz

Post by Dave Nickason [SBS MVP]
- Using PST files over a network is unsupported and should be avoided.
PSTs need to be on the local PC for performance and reliability reasons.
My understanding is that data corruption issues are common with
networked PSTs and that's why MS doesn't support them.
- Use of PSTs in business networks is discouraged exactly for the reason
you're trying to use them on the server, which is that desktop files are
generally not backed up.
- You're right that the previous version of Exchange did not accommodate
mailbox restore very elegantly. In the current version, you can restore
the mailbox store to a Recovery Storage Group, then use exmerge to
extract the specific mailbox to a PST, then import it back into the
server mailbox. See
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;824126.
Recovery Storage Groups don't work for public folders, but neither does
the PST solution since all PFs are stored in the server databases.
- In general, Exchange's Deleted Item Recovery should prevent the need
to restore a mailbox in almost all instances. You should go into the
properties of the Public and Private stores and make sure this is
enabled for a sufficient period to make sure that users can recover
deleted items themselves. IMO the only reason you'd need to do a
restore is in the case of some kind of database corruption or disaster
recovery scenario, in which case you'd want to recover the whole store
anyway. This seems to be pretty rare as Exchange is very robust.
- Using the server mailboxes instead of PSTs is better for a wealth of
reasons: centralized configuration and maintenance with little or no
admin involvement with Outlook. Mailbox creation and related tasks are
handled by the add user wizard and from AD, so you're not creating PST
files or worrying about where they're located, backup, etc. Also
centralized control of AV and anti-spam solutions outside of user
control, which should reduce virus risk significantly.
- Cached mode is generally considered a good thing, although IMO the
benefits are more noticeable in larger networks where LAN traffic is
more of an issue. IMO the biggest benefit is that you can use the
Outlook junk mail filter only in cached mode. There are a couple of
potential issues such as certain items taking a while to show up in user
mailboxes, particularly with public folders.
- Unicode is much better - hugely greater file size limit for one thing,
and supposedly more robust than the old format PSTs. If you
create/share items with Outlook 2003 with Unicode turned on, older
versions of Outlook wont' be able to read them. Hopefully you're
convinced to get rid of the PSTs by now anyway. The answer to your
question AFAIK is that you would have to close the old PSTs in Outlook
and maybe even rename them, so Outlook is not aware of any old-style
PSTs. Create a new Unicode PST and import the items from the old one.
Once you're satisfied that the items transferred OK, delete the old file
after closing it in Outlook. After this, you can r-click your Mailbox
at the top of the Outlook folder list -> Properties. On the General
tab, click Advanced, then go to the Advanced tab there. It should say
"Outlook is running in Unicode mode against the Microsoft Exchange Server."
I think that particularly with SBS 2003, you'll find yourself a lot
happier with the messages stored in the server mailbox as Heaven and
Bill Gates intended. Centralized admin, AV, and spam, management
through AD, deleted item and mailbox retention, more robust, less work,
better backup with the SBS backup wizard..... A long list of benefits.

Post by Whiz Dunbar
Hi,
This is about using PST files with Exchange. It may be a bit long but
it's quite interesting. And I have 4 questions so I will number them as
I go along.
We installed our first SBS server back in 1998. SBS 4.x.? Then we got
a SBS2000.
I didn't know much about Exchange but at that time I read that the best
(and only) way to restore lost or deleted mailboxes or a dysfunctional
Exchange server was to have a spare identical server under the desk
ready to receive and repair the Exchange databases.
Also I realized around that time that it was not possible to restore
individual mailboxes : everyone would get his mail rolled back after a
restore because of Careless Joe.
Then I discovered PST files and the possibility with Outlook to use the
personal stores as the user's main mailbox and use the user's Exchange
mailbox as a transitional box.
So Careless Joe can still wreak havoc in his own mailbox and nobody is
affected by that.
By design these PST mailboxes were stored on the user's local PC and
that was OK for a while. Then I discovered that I could put them on the
SBS server in a big Email Folder with a sub-folder per user and assign
permissions according to duties and hierarchy etc. That was better, and
those folders all got stored with the backup. And the Admin knew what
was where and could move them around when people changed jobs and moved
on, or out.
Now I never quite knew what kind of load this was putting on my
network. Was a client's Outlook actually downloading files from
Exchange and sending them back to the PST on the SBS server? And then
having to reload them from the PST? Or was there some kind of name
resolution going on so that Exchange would shift the mail directly from
the Exchange database into the PST without sending it down the wire to
the user's Outlook and back again to the PST?
That's Question 1. What stress does this solution put on my network?
So now on my new SBS 2003 I have the same setup and I want to know if
it's a good idea to leave it that way. Or is it downright stupid? Has
Exchange made so much progress in restore and recovery that I no longer
need to have this laborious yet useful setup?
That's Question 2. Should I leave things as they are or am I safe with
Exchange?
I also noticed that in Outlook when I set up a new Exchange account I
have the option or using a "cache". Is that useful, necessary, only for
remote users? Or is it the best thing since mashed potatoes .
That's Question 3. Should I use the cache option in Outlook ? My users
have files that are 200 Mo. 400 Mo. 700 Mo. There are 25 users and no
one wants to archive anything anytime.
I also see that Unicode is causing me a problem now whereas it didn't
on my SBS2000. Exchange won't let me designate a non Unicode PST for
receiving messages. So in Outlook now my users have two Inboxes and the
"transitional" Exchange mailbox is no longer transitional. The mail is
stuck in there and will not move to the PST mailbox. When I specify the
user's PST file I get a message about the file not being compatible
with .ost files. What's all that about?
OK. I realise that one day I will have to convert my PSTS to the
Unicode compatible version and maybe now would be the best time to do
it. Is there a tool I can use where I can sneak up on a PST that is
offline and convert (upgrade it) it from Outlook 97 to Outlook 2003?
That would be handy. Or do I have to use the conversion function from
the file menu in Outlook?
That's Question 4. If my PST solution is still a viable and useful
option, how should I go about upgrading all those files?
Thanks for any help.
Whiz Dunbar

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by Whiz Dunbar
Hi,
This is about using PST files with Exchange. It may be a bit long but it's
quite interesting. And I have 4 questions so I will number them as I go
along.
We installed our first SBS server back in 1998. SBS 4.x.? Then we got a
SBS2000.
I didn't know much about Exchange but at that time I read that the best (and
only) way to restore lost or deleted mailboxes or a dysfunctional Exchange
server was to have a spare identical server under the desk ready to receive
and repair the Exchange databases.
Also I realized around that time that it was not possible to restore
individual mailboxes : everyone would get his mail rolled back after a
restore because of Careless Joe.
Then I discovered PST files and the possibility with Outlook to use the
personal stores as the user's main mailbox and use the user's Exchange
mailbox as a transitional box.
So Careless Joe can still wreak havoc in his own mailbox and nobody is
affected by that.
By design these PST mailboxes were stored on the user's local PC and that
was OK for a while. Then I discovered that I could put them on the SBS
server in a big Email Folder with a sub-folder per user and assign
permissions according to duties and hierarchy etc. That was better, and
those folders all got stored with the backup. And the Admin knew what was
where and could move them around when people changed jobs and moved on, or
out.
Now I never quite knew what kind of load this was putting on my network. Was
a client's Outlook actually downloading files from Exchange and sending them
back to the PST on the SBS server? And then having to reload them from the
PST? Or was there some kind of name resolution going on so that Exchange
would shift the mail directly from the Exchange database into the PST
without sending it down the wire to the user's Outlook and back again to the
PST?
That's Question 1. What stress does this solution put on my network?
So now on my new SBS 2003 I have the same setup and I want to know if it's a
good idea to leave it that way. Or is it downright stupid? Has Exchange made
so much progress in restore and recovery that I no longer need to have this
laborious yet useful setup?
That's Question 2. Should I leave things as they are or am I safe with
Exchange?
I also noticed that in Outlook when I set up a new Exchange account I have
the option or using a "cache". Is that useful, necessary, only for remote
users? Or is it the best thing since mashed potatoes .
That's Question 3. Should I use the cache option in Outlook ? My users have
files that are 200 Mo. 400 Mo. 700 Mo. There are 25 users and no one wants
to archive anything anytime.
I also see that Unicode is causing me a problem now whereas it didn't on my
SBS2000. Exchange won't let me designate a non Unicode PST for receiving
messages. So in Outlook now my users have two Inboxes and the "transitional"
Exchange mailbox is no longer transitional. The mail is stuck in there and
will not move to the PST mailbox. When I specify the user's PST file I get a
message about the file not being compatible with .ost files. What's all that
about?
OK. I realise that one day I will have to convert my PSTS to the Unicode
compatible version and maybe now would be the best time to do it. Is there a
tool I can use where I can sneak up on a PST that is offline and convert
(upgrade it) it from Outlook 97 to Outlook 2003?
That would be handy. Or do I have to use the conversion function from the
file menu in Outlook?
That's Question 4. If my PST solution is still a viable and useful option,
how should I go about upgrading all those files?
Thanks for any help.
Whiz Dunbar

You can get back your all pst data without loosing them with the help of third party pst repair tool. So, try this tool now and have its full benefits and features.

For More Information - https://www.prbuzz.com/technology/96991-splitting-over-sized-pst-files-are-now-very-easy.html
https://www.prbuzz.com/technology/97252-split-pst-software.html