Does Outlook suffer opening multiple PST files?

[Guest]

With Outlook 2007 suffering from slowness issues, and Msoft recommending
smaller PST files, I've split my pst files by year, i.e., 2007.pst, 2006.pst,
etc. I want Windows Desktop Search to index all of them but am leery about
having Outlook load them all everytime I run it.

So the question becomes: does Outlook 2007 and its user suffer a performance
hit by opening multiple PST files, or can WDS maintain and search pst files
that have been closed?

 

[Roady [MVP]]

No need anymore. Use the following update;
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C262BCFD-1E09-49B6-9003-C4C47539DF66

 

[Guest]

Thank you very much, Robert, for replying. I heard about this patch from a
commenter at my http://wildeaboutcomputers.com blog yesterday, and I've
installed it. It has indeed improved Outlook 2007's performance, although I
had already improved it greatly with a change I'd made previously.

You wrote, "No need anymore". Do you mean that Outlook's performance will
not be impacted if I open, say, four 500MB PST files as part of its default
profile?

There remains the problem that by opening these files in Outlook every day
their modified dates will change, which will cause my backup software to
think they need backing up every night (even though the only PST file that
really needs backing up is the current year that's active). Solve that and
you will really have nailed it!

No need anymore. Use the following update;
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C262BCFD-1E09-49B6-9003-C4C47539DF66

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----

With Outlook 2007 suffering from slowness issues, and Msoft recommending
smaller PST files, I've split my pst files by year, i.e., 2007.pst,
2006.pst,
etc. I want Windows Desktop Search to index all of them but am leery about
having Outlook load them all everytime I run it.

So the question becomes: does Outlook 2007 and its user suffer a
performance
hit by opening multiple PST files, or can WDS maintain and search pst
files
that have been closed?

 

[Roady [MVP]]

1×500MB or 4×500MB; even on an everage computer you wouldn't really notice
the difference.

As for the back-up; I keep my archives in a directory excluded from
incremental backup (daily) and differential backup (weekly) so they are only
in my full backups (monthly).

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----

Thank you very much, Robert, for replying. I heard about this patch from a
commenter at my http://wildeaboutcomputers.com blog yesterday, and I've
installed it. It has indeed improved Outlook 2007's performance, although
I
had already improved it greatly with a change I'd made previously.

You wrote, "No need anymore". Do you mean that Outlook's performance will
not be impacted if I open, say, four 500MB PST files as part of its
default
profile?

There remains the problem that by opening these files in Outlook every day
their modified dates will change, which will cause my backup software to
think they need backing up every night (even though the only PST file that
really needs backing up is the current year that's active). Solve that and
you will really have nailed it!

No need anymore. Use the following update;
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C262BCFD-1E09-49B6-9003-C4C47539DF66

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----

With Outlook 2007 suffering from slowness issues, and Msoft
recommending
smaller PST files, I've split my pst files by year, i.e., 2007.pst,
2006.pst,
etc. I want Windows Desktop Search to index all of them but am leery
about
having Outlook load them all everytime I run it.

So the question becomes: does Outlook 2007 and its user suffer a
performance
hit by opening multiple PST files, or can WDS maintain and search pst
files
that have been closed?

 

[Guest]

You da Bomb, Dog! Your solution for keeping the archives separate to prevent
daily backup is perfect. I'll give the 4x500MB a try. Thanks VERY MUCH.

1×500MB or 4×500MB; even on an everage computer you wouldn't really notice
the difference.

As for the back-up; I keep my archives in a directory excluded from
incremental backup (daily) and differential backup (weekly) so they are only
in my full backups (monthly).

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----

Thank you very much, Robert, for replying. I heard about this patch from a
commenter at my http://wildeaboutcomputers.com blog yesterday, and I've
installed it. It has indeed improved Outlook 2007's performance, although
I
had already improved it greatly with a change I'd made previously.

You wrote, "No need anymore". Do you mean that Outlook's performance will
not be impacted if I open, say, four 500MB PST files as part of its
default
profile?

There remains the problem that by opening these files in Outlook every day
their modified dates will change, which will cause my backup software to
think they need backing up every night (even though the only PST file that
really needs backing up is the current year that's active). Solve that and
you will really have nailed it!

No need anymore. Use the following update;
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C262BCFD-1E09-49B6-9003-C4C47539DF66

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

-----
With Outlook 2007 suffering from slowness issues, and Msoft
recommending
smaller PST files, I've split my pst files by year, i.e., 2007.pst,
2006.pst,
etc. I want Windows Desktop Search to index all of them but am leery
about
having Outlook load them all everytime I run it.

So the question becomes: does Outlook 2007 and its user suffer a
performance
hit by opening multiple PST files, or can WDS maintain and search pst
files
that have been closed?

 

[Roady [MVP]]

You're welcome!

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----

You da Bomb, Dog! Your solution for keeping the archives separate to
prevent
daily backup is perfect. I'll give the 4x500MB a try. Thanks VERY MUCH.

1×500MB or 4×500MB; even on an everage computer you wouldn't really
notice
the difference.

As for the back-up; I keep my archives in a directory excluded from
incremental backup (daily) and differential backup (weekly) so they are
only
in my full backups (monthly).

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----

Thank you very much, Robert, for replying. I heard about this patch
from a
commenter at my http://wildeaboutcomputers.com blog yesterday, and I've
installed it. It has indeed improved Outlook 2007's performance,
although
I
had already improved it greatly with a change I'd made previously.

You wrote, "No need anymore". Do you mean that Outlook's performance
will
not be impacted if I open, say, four 500MB PST files as part of its
default
profile?

There remains the problem that by opening these files in Outlook every
day
their modified dates will change, which will cause my backup software
to
think they need backing up every night (even though the only PST file
that
really needs backing up is the current year that's active). Solve that
and
you will really have nailed it!

:

No need anymore. Use the following update;
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=C262BCFD-1E09-49B6-9003-C4C47539DF66

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003
http://www.howto-outlook.com/
Outlook FAQ, HowTo, Downloads, Add-Ins and more

-----
With Outlook 2007 suffering from slowness issues, and Msoft
recommending
smaller PST files, I've split my pst files by year, i.e., 2007.pst,
2006.pst,
etc. I want Windows Desktop Search to index all of them but am leery
about
having Outlook load them all everytime I run it.

So the question becomes: does Outlook 2007 and its user suffer a
performance
hit by opening multiple PST files, or can WDS maintain and search
pst
files
that have been closed?