is there a backend database solution for Outlook 2003.
we have over 1,200,000 mil emails and need a solid backend database,
instead of the .pst files.

Thanks -
Richard

In article <474a60a9$0$8794$(E-Mail Removed)>, cms'nospam'0009
@gmail.com says...
> is there a backend database solution for Outlook 2003.
> we have over 1,200,000 mil emails and need a solid backend database,
> instead of the .pst files.

Is there a reason you can't run Exchange Server?

BTW, there's a 20Gb pst/ost file size limit in Outlook 2003 - you might
find this info handy
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832925


--
Duncan

"Duncan McC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> BTW, there's a 20Gb pst/ost file size limit in Outlook 2003 - you might
> find this info handy
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832925
>
>


That's the DEFAULT max size - in actual fact the new Unicode pst file can
hold up to 33TB of data......

Duncan McC wrote:

> In article <474a60a9$0$8794$(E-Mail Removed)>, cms'nospam'0009
> @gmail.com says...
>> is there a backend database solution for Outlook 2003.
>> we have over 1,200,000 mil emails and need a solid backend database,
>> instead of the .pst files.
>
> Is there a reason you can't run Exchange Server?
>
> BTW, there's a 20Gb pst/ost file size limit in Outlook 2003 - you might
> find this info handy
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832925
>
>
Thanks for the info,
as for Exchange Server, on a Laptop ? extra cost ?

--
Well that good a pst file can be 20GB in sizes.
however, its just that a sql backend database would be faster and more
secure, wouldn't you agree ?, SO..thought I would ask to see if there
in-fact was one available for Outlook.

Richard

Gordon wrote:

> "Duncan McC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> BTW, there's a 20Gb pst/ost file size limit in Outlook 2003 - you might
>> find this info handy
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832925
>>
>>
>
>
> That's the DEFAULT max size - in actual fact the new Unicode pst file can
> hold up to 33TB of data......


Duncan,
Please drop me a link on this... 33TB are you sure...
send some info...


Thanks -
Richard

In article <474adfca$0$2305$(E-Mail Removed)>, cms'nospam'0009
@gmail.com says...
> Duncan McC wrote:
>
> > In article <474a60a9$0$8794$(E-Mail Removed)>, cms'nospam'0009
> > @gmail.com says...
> >> is there a backend database solution for Outlook 2003.
> >> we have over 1,200,000 mil emails and need a solid backend database,
> >> instead of the .pst files.
> >
> > Is there a reason you can't run Exchange Server?
> >
> > BTW, there's a 20Gb pst/ost file size limit in Outlook 2003 - you might
> > find this info handy
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832925
> >
> >
> Thanks for the info,
> as for Exchange Server, on a Laptop ? extra cost ?
>
> --
> Well that good a pst file can be 20GB in sizes.
> however, its just that a sql backend database would be faster and more
> secure, wouldn't you agree ?, SO..thought I would ask to see if there
> in-fact was one available for Outlook.

Yer a programmer right? And you want to re-write the book, right?

MS Exchange Server is a proprietory database I guess. It can handle a
lot of mail, and a lot of mailboxes. You'd be hard pressed to write a
SQL Server database as fast and optimal as Exchange Server, methinks.
And to have all the features it has too.

It's important to run an Exchange aware backup - or the log files will
eat your hard disk up.

--
Duncan

In article <474adfca$0$2305$(E-Mail Removed)>, cms'nospam'0009
@gmail.com says...
> Duncan McC wrote:
>
> > In article <474a60a9$0$8794$(E-Mail Removed)>, cms'nospam'0009
> > @gmail.com says...
> >> is there a backend database solution for Outlook 2003.
> >> we have over 1,200,000 mil emails and need a solid backend database,
> >> instead of the .pst files.
> >
> > Is there a reason you can't run Exchange Server?
> >
> > BTW, there's a 20Gb pst/ost file size limit in Outlook 2003 - you might
> > find this info handy
> > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/832925
> >
> >
> Thanks for the info,
> as for Exchange Server, on a Laptop ? extra cost ?

Oh... on a laptop. Hmmmm, I don't think many would agree that's a very
good environment for it. It should be on it's own server type machine.
Check MS for pricing. Microsoft Small Business Server could be worth
looking at for your environment. I'll bet there are many a folk running
SBS on a desktop type machine with just a simple RAID1 array and extra
RAM (it likes 4Gb) - (I do, as I support it for several clients).

--
Duncan