Relationships between PST Calendar, Exchange Mailbox Calendar andSychronization

[Ernest Maw]

Windows 2000 (SP4)
Office 2003 (SP1)

Can anyone direct me to information that pertains how the
synchronization process and Local vs. Exchange Server calendars works?

In the past I only had a calendar folder in my Exchange Mailbox. In
that situation, it did not matter if I opened a meeting request while it
was in my Exchange Server Mailbox, or if I open it in my Local PST
in-box, it was put on the calendar on the Exchange Server.

Then a problem occurred. I must have been clicking around one day and
created a calendar folder in my local PST file. From that point
forward, any meeting requests I open from my local PST file, ONLY when
in the local calendar, (and any opened in my Exchange Mailbox went ONLY
went into that Exchange Mailbox calendar). Synchronization did nothing
to resolve this situation.

I was not give the option of deleting the calendar file from my local
PST file (greyed-out). My only recourse was to create a new local PST
file (without a calendar) and move all folders to the new PST. Then I
deleted the old PST and all was working again. (BTW, as someone that
files by name, I have more than 2000+ folders that had to be
individually moved to the new PST file).

This whole situation as prompted me to want to understand more about how
different calendars (any synchronization) work together, (or not).

Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Windows 2000 (SP4)
Office 2003 (SP1)

Can anyone direct me to information that pertains how the
synchronization process and Local vs. Exchange Server calendars
works?

You can't sync PSTs - why are you using a PST file instead of the Exchange
mailbox for delivery?

In the past I only had a calendar folder in my Exchange Mailbox. In
that situation, it did not matter if I opened a meeting request while
it was in my Exchange Server Mailbox, or if I open it in my Local PST
in-box, it was put on the calendar on the Exchange Server.

Do you mean OST file instead, then? Cached mode in Outlook 2003?

Then a problem occurred. I must have been clicking around one day and
created a calendar folder in my local PST file. From that point
forward, any meeting requests I open from my local PST file, ONLY when
in the local calendar, (and any opened in my Exchange Mailbox went
ONLY went into that Exchange Mailbox calendar). Synchronization did
nothing to resolve this situation.

I was not give the option of deleting the calendar file from my local
PST file (greyed-out). My only recourse was to create a new local PST
file (without a calendar) and move all folders to the new PST. Then I
deleted the old PST and all was working again. (BTW, as someone that
files by name, I have more than 2000+ folders that had to be
individually moved to the new PST file).

This whole situation as prompted me to want to understand more about
how different calendars (any synchronization) work together, (or not).

Basics:
Do not use PST files. Connect to the exchange mailbox directly, with or
without cached mode in OL2003 as you wish. Keep everything in one place.
That way, even if you don't have a good connection to the Exchange server,
and you create/modify stuff in your offline cached copy of the mailbox, it
should sync to the server when you're reconnected.

 

[Ernie M.]

Lanwench,



I really respect the Microsoft MVPs in this newsgroup. However your advise
"Basics: Do not use PST files.", is way off base.



Each user's operating situation is different and for some of us, it's better
to keep "all" of our folders and e-mails in a local PST file. I work in a
large corporation where the Exchange Servers are backed up each night.
However, contrary to popular believe, that back-up to an individual user is
just about useless. Most companies will not re-load and entire server just
to recover the files of one user. By keeping all of my e-mails in a local
PST file, I have access to all of my mails even when I cannot connect. By
keeping all of my e-mails in a local file, I don't have excessive
synchronization times. I can also back-up my PST files by easily burning
them to a CD.



I don't think your categorical statement is good advise in all user's
situations and actually believe the opposite is actually the better advise.



Ernie Maw

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Lanwench,

I really respect the Microsoft MVPs in this newsgroup. However your
advise "Basics: Do not use PST files.", is way off base.

Perhaps for you. I stand firmly by my opinion on this.

Each user's operating situation is different and for some of us, it's
better to keep "all" of our folders and e-mails in a local PST file.
I work in a large corporation where the Exchange Servers are backed
up each night. However, contrary to popular believe, that back-up to
an individual user is just about useless. Most companies will not
re-load and entire server just to recover the files of one user. By
keeping all of my e-mails in a local PST file, I have access to all
of my mails even when I cannot connect.

An OST file or cached mode lets you do the same thing.

By keeping all of my e-mails
in a local file, I don't have excessive synchronization times.

I don't know what excessive sync times means - on a decent LAN connection,
it shouldn't take you long to sync - and OL2003 cached mode is pretty much
instantaneous.

I can
also back-up my PST files by easily burning them to a CD.

And if your hard drive blows up after you make your CD backup, you're out of
luck.

Deleted item retention means never (well, rarely) having to say you're
sorry. Users can recover items themselves if they're within the time period
specified for DIR.
Hiding users/mailboxes for a period of time rather than deleting them
outright is a good thing, too.

See
http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/The-Ed-Crowley-Never-Restore-Method/sectionID/1009
for some ideas/opinions.
And also
http://www.exchangefaq.org/faq/Exchange-5.5/Why-PST-=-BAD-/q/Why-PST-=-BAD/qid/1209

Additionally, although I'm not a huge fan of brick-level backup (and this
method should be used only *in conjunction with* a proper online exchange
store backup), there are several such products/agents for Exchange-aware
backup software.

I don't think your categorical statement is good advise in all user's
situations and actually believe the opposite is actually the better
advise.

If you get into a situation where you are supporting lots of Exchange
environments, you may find otherwise. But it's your choice; your mileage may
vary, as they say.

 

[Guest]

DONT LISTEN TO PEOPLE THAT SAY PST's ARE BAD... Unless your using Exchange
Server 2003 pst's are GOOD... On older versions of Exchange storing all of
your users email on the server will CRASH it if it reaches its 16 gig limit.
The new version has corrected this...

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]]

Actually, a proper archiving system for storing older material with good
search capability is what you'd really want to have with an older copy of
Exchange with a 16gb store limit.
--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of
Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers



"Re: Relationships between PST Calendar," <Re: Relationships between PST
Calendar, @discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

DONT LISTEN TO PEOPLE THAT SAY PST's ARE BAD... Unless your using
Exchange Server 2003 pst's are GOOD... On older versions of Exchange
storing all of your users email on the server will CRASH it if it
reaches its 16 gig limit. The new version has corrected this...

Not true. Exchange 2003 still has two versions - Standard and Enterprise. As
with all versions of Exchange, Standard has a 16GB limit per store, and
Enterprise doesn't.

And PST files are not a suitable archiving method if the company wishes to
maintain any control over the data.