ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Outlook .pst folder redirection possible?

    IT Discussion
    outlook exchange pst ost
    9
    68
    18.5k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • D
      Dashrender
      last edited by

      LOL - I feel like you're belittling me. I know you're not, it's just the difference in the way we think.

      Today I don't think it's so cool having a specific technology - I'm out of that phase of my working life.

      But when I was 20 - hell yeah having something that seemed only destine for an Enterprise company in my office would make me feel cool and I would have felt the need to talk about it.

      S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        scottalanmiller @Dashrender
        last edited by

        @Dashrender said:

        But when I was 20 - hell yeah having something that seemed only destine for an Enterprise company in my office would make me feel cool and I would have felt the need to talk about it.

        But, and this is important I think, would you feel cool because you worked on it or did you feel cool because your office had it.

        For example, do you think that the receptionist would brag about the fact that the IT guy was using a SAN for her documents? My guess is that you would feel that it was cool because you were the one touching it, not just because you were an end user leveraging it.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • D
          Dashrender
          last edited by

          Are you saying that the OP was an end user? We don't see many end users around here, even fewer that actually know the technology that's in the closet.

          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • S
            scottalanmiller @Dashrender
            last edited by

            @Dashrender said:

            Are you saying that the OP was an end user? We don't see many end users around here, even fewer that actually know the technology that's in the closet.

            No, but in the way that it was worded with the SAN comment there was no hint at him running the SAN, only that other people had storage on it. If he meant to brag, he left out all of the bits that would connect it in that way.

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • S
              scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              I mean I get it a little, I don't have to be a pilot to brag about getting to "fly" in a 787 Dreamliner. But it isn't bragging to make me sound cool, just sound lucky on my luxurious flight.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • D
                Dashrender @dafyre
                last edited by

                @dafyre said:

                @scottalanmiller said:

                @dafyre said:

                At my last employer, we did store the PST files in the End-User's Redirected Documents folder. To my knowledge, we never had any Outlook issues that were caused by that.

                If they are small, the network is fast and the NAS never disconnects, it often works.

                We were ~250 users, most of them were redirected to a home folder on the SAN. The network was 1gig, and we did have problems, but by and large, the Exchange bits and the Home Folder bits were reliable.

                Where did you go @dafyre ? How is your system setup? SAN to the desktop or to the fileserver?

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • D
                  dafyre @scottalanmiller
                  last edited by

                  @scottalanmiller said:

                  @dafyre said:

                  @scottalanmiller said:

                  @dafyre said:

                  At my last employer, we did store the PST files in the End-User's Redirected Documents folder. To my knowledge, we never had any Outlook issues that were caused by that.

                  If they are small, the network is fast and the NAS never disconnects, it often works.

                  We were ~250 users, most of them were redirected to a home folder on the SAN. The network was 1gig, and we did have problems, but by and large, the Exchange bits and the Home Folder bits were reliable.

                  Home folders on a SAN? We've seen people do this with smaller Drobo units but it's awkward. You have a LUN per user and iSCSI on the desktop? I've worked in a few places doing this but never on any scale (like a dozen users tops and very special user cases.)

                  Yes Home Folders on the SAN. One big iSCSI LUN connected to a Windows Server Failover Cluster for the SMB share of \server\homefolders... The full path was \server\homefolders\username.

                  It was a single LUN (3TB, IIRC). Not a LUN per user... that's just nuts!

                  S D 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • S
                    scottalanmiller
                    last edited by

                    Yeah, inquiring minds want to know!

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • S
                      scottalanmiller @dafyre
                      last edited by

                      @dafyre said:

                      @scottalanmiller said:

                      @dafyre said:

                      @scottalanmiller said:

                      @dafyre said:

                      At my last employer, we did store the PST files in the End-User's Redirected Documents folder. To my knowledge, we never had any Outlook issues that were caused by that.

                      If they are small, the network is fast and the NAS never disconnects, it often works.

                      We were ~250 users, most of them were redirected to a home folder on the SAN. The network was 1gig, and we did have problems, but by and large, the Exchange bits and the Home Folder bits were reliable.

                      Home folders on a SAN? We've seen people do this with smaller Drobo units but it's awkward. You have a LUN per user and iSCSI on the desktop? I've worked in a few places doing this but never on any scale (like a dozen users tops and very special user cases.)

                      Yes Home Folders on the SAN. One big iSCSI LUN connected to a Windows Server Failover Cluster for the SMB share of \server\homefolders... The full path was \server\homefolders\username.

                      It was a single LUN (3TB, IIRC). Not a LUN per user... that's just nuts!

                      An so the home folders are actually on a fileserver and the fileserver stores on a SAN.

                      One LUN per user is actually a standard way to handle certain things. Not common, but not unheard of. The Netgear SC101 SAN was designed for exactly this.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • D
                        dafyre
                        last edited by

                        Replied. 🙂 Head got stuck in PowerShell coding... I'll check back again in a bit. 🙂

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • D
                          Dashrender @dafyre
                          last edited by

                          @dafyre said:

                          @scottalanmiller said:

                          @dafyre said:

                          @scottalanmiller said:

                          @dafyre said:

                          At my last employer, we did store the PST files in the End-User's Redirected Documents folder. To my knowledge, we never had any Outlook issues that were caused by that.

                          If they are small, the network is fast and the NAS never disconnects, it often works.

                          We were ~250 users, most of them were redirected to a home folder on the SAN. The network was 1gig, and we did have problems, but by and large, the Exchange bits and the Home Folder bits were reliable.

                          Home folders on a SAN? We've seen people do this with smaller Drobo units but it's awkward. You have a LUN per user and iSCSI on the desktop? I've worked in a few places doing this but never on any scale (like a dozen users tops and very special user cases.)

                          Yes Home Folders on the SAN. One big iSCSI LUN connected to a Windows Server Failover Cluster for the SMB share of \server\homefolders... The full path was \server\homefolders\username.

                          It was a single LUN (3TB, IIRC). Not a LUN per user... that's just nuts!

                          OK now that we know that it's a fileserver, why did you mention that it was SAN?

                          D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • D
                            dafyre @Dashrender
                            last edited by dafyre

                            @Dashrender said:

                            @dafyre said:

                            @scottalanmiller said:

                            @dafyre said:

                            @scottalanmiller said:

                            @dafyre said:

                            At my last employer, we did store the PST files in the End-User's Redirected Documents folder. To my knowledge, we never had any Outlook issues that were caused by that.

                            If they are small, the network is fast and the NAS never disconnects, it often works.

                            We were ~250 users, most of them were redirected to a home folder on the SAN. The network was 1gig, and we did have problems, but by and large, the Exchange bits and the Home Folder bits were reliable.

                            Home folders on a SAN? We've seen people do this with smaller Drobo units but it's awkward. You have a LUN per user and iSCSI on the desktop? I've worked in a few places doing this but never on any scale (like a dozen users tops and very special user cases.)

                            Yes Home Folders on the SAN. One big iSCSI LUN connected to a Windows Server Failover Cluster for the SMB share of \server\homefolders... The full path was \server\homefolders\username.

                            It was a single LUN (3TB, IIRC). Not a LUN per user... that's just nuts!

                            OK now that we know that it's a fileserver, why did you mention that it was SAN?

                            The SAN is where the User Home Folders lived. The File Server connected to the SAN, and shared out the "HOMEFOLDERS" folder from the SAN Lun.

                            Edit: Going AFK a bit. I'll catch up soon.

                            S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • S
                              scottalanmiller @dafyre
                              last edited by

                              @dafyre said:

                              The SAN is where the User Home Folders lived. The File Server connected to the SAN, and shared out the "HOMEFOLDERS" folder from the SAN Lun.

                              I get that it is where the bits end up. But the file server is how it is normally said that they "live." They have SMB Shared that they are on from a file server. The file server stores its one filesystem on a SAN, the folders themselves do not "exist" there. The SAN cannot see or read them or manipulate them. To the SAN it is just a LUN. It is the file server that takes that raw block device of SAN, DAS, or just disks and turns it into home folders and such.

                              If it wasn't a SAN but was just disks, would you say that the home directories were on disks instead of on a file server? No different.

                              D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • D
                                dafyre @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @scottalanmiller said:

                                @dafyre said:

                                The SAN is where the User Home Folders lived. The File Server connected to the SAN, and shared out the "HOMEFOLDERS" folder from the SAN Lun.

                                I get that it is where the bits end up. But the file server is how it is normally said that they "live." They have SMB Shared that they are on from a file server. The file server stores its one filesystem on a SAN, the folders themselves do not "exist" there. The SAN cannot see or read them or manipulate them. To the SAN it is just a LUN. It is the file server that takes that raw block device of SAN, DAS, or just disks and turns it into home folders and such.

                                If it wasn't a SAN but was just disks, would you say that the home directories were on disks instead of on a file server? No different.

                                Right. I was being extra verbose to make sure everybody understands the route data takes from the user's roaming profile to get to its final resting place (the SAN).

                                S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • S
                                  scottalanmiller @dafyre
                                  last edited by

                                  @dafyre said:

                                  @scottalanmiller said:

                                  @dafyre said:

                                  The SAN is where the User Home Folders lived. The File Server connected to the SAN, and shared out the "HOMEFOLDERS" folder from the SAN Lun.

                                  I get that it is where the bits end up. But the file server is how it is normally said that they "live." They have SMB Shared that they are on from a file server. The file server stores its one filesystem on a SAN, the folders themselves do not "exist" there. The SAN cannot see or read them or manipulate them. To the SAN it is just a LUN. It is the file server that takes that raw block device of SAN, DAS, or just disks and turns it into home folders and such.

                                  If it wasn't a SAN but was just disks, would you say that the home directories were on disks instead of on a file server? No different.

                                  Right. I was being extra verbose to make sure everybody understands the route data takes from the user's roaming profile to get to its final resting place (the SAN).

                                  I think our concern was the lack of verbosity as it left us unclear what was going on. Specifically in this case it made a pretty big difference because the reliability of a file server handling PST/OST and doing it to a SAN would be very different. The SAN plays no part of the relevance in the discussion in this case as it is behind the scenes and it is the file server that creates the concern.

                                  There is no concern with putting PSTs on a SAN. So stating putting them on a file server, where there is concern, as putting them on a SAN because the SAN is backing the file server, isn't verbose enough.

                                  @Dashrender pointed out that a lot of people were not aware that using SANs for home directories could be done or was done so that that might add to this seeming confusing to me and not to others. But we didn't mention that SANs are specifically a fix for file servers for PSTs and that was the original context here so really matters.

                                  So just so people are aware: the concern with PSTs is with the SMB protocol. Using one LUN per user for home directories stored actually on a SAN is a known, while extreme, means of handling remote PST storage.

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • iroalI
                                    iroal
                                    last edited by

                                    Where I work nobody delete e-mails.
                                    I try to explain the problem with the size in Exchange but they just don't care.

                                    Only way I found to reduce the Exchange Database was use Pst, we have a lot, and many are really big.

                                    I put all of them in an old server, 12 years old, It works perfect, no problems since I use this system.

                                    DustinB3403D S 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • DustinB3403D
                                      DustinB3403 @iroal
                                      last edited by

                                      @iroal said:

                                      Where I work nobody delete e-mails.
                                      I try to explain the problem with the size in Exchange but they just don't care.

                                      Only way I found to reduce the Exchange Database was use Pst, we have a lot, and many are really big.

                                      I put all of them in an old server, 12 years old, It works perfect, no problems since I use this system.

                                      Yeah no, that's a horrible process. If users are storing emails into PST files that are hosted on a network share, you might as well kiss that email goodbye.

                                      PST are not designed to work over a network share. Period, never have been and likely never will be.

                                      If you need an infinite amount of past email saved switch everyone over to OWA or a different platform.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                      • S
                                        scottalanmiller @iroal
                                        last edited by

                                        @iroal said:

                                        Where I work nobody delete e-mails.
                                        I try to explain the problem with the size in Exchange but they just don't care.

                                        Only way I found to reduce the Exchange Database was use Pst, we have a lot, and many are really big.

                                        I put all of them in an old server, 12 years old, It works perfect, no problems since I use this system.

                                        Why not just let Exchange get bigger? How much are we talking per user? Average and worst case?

                                        iroalI 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • IRJI
                                          IRJ
                                          last edited by

                                          Policy is really the issue here. Set a mailbox limit and stick with it. Force users to clean out their old garbage. Chances are there is a ton of emails that can be deleted. Exchange is not meant to hold attachments, so all those emails should be deleted and their content should be stored on a user's network share.

                                          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • S
                                            scottalanmiller @IRJ
                                            last edited by

                                            @IRJ said:

                                            Policy is really the issue here. Set a mailbox limit and stick with it.

                                            If management wants large mailboxes and is the one paying for them, what's the concern?

                                            IRJI 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 3 / 4
                                            • First post
                                              Last post