Network Stored PST files ... don't do it!

Published 21 January 07 03:15 PM

At least once a week, someone on the Performance team will get a customer call concerning hangs or resource depletion on their file server.  The file server in question is used for user home folder storage and users are accessing Outlook Personal Storage (.pst) files stored on the server from their client.  The issue will manifest as either a server hang, or PagedPool depletion (Event ID 2020).  Oftentimes the issue will occur first thing in the morning - when users are logging on and launching Outlook.  In especially severe cases, the issue occurs several times daily.  Sometimes the server will hang for a few minutes and then continue operating for a few minutes - and then hang again.  Rinse & repeat.  The users are frustrated because of slow access to their data, the server administrators are frustrated because they are tasked with fixing the problem, and upper management is frustrated because everyone else is frustrated.

If you're in this situation - there's good news ... and very bad news.  The good news is that this problem is very common and is a known issue.  The very bad news (from the customer's standpoint) is that PST files on a LAN/WAN is an unsupported configuration.  Some customers are very surprised to hear this but Network Stored PST files have been unsupported since the days of Exchange 4.0.  Microsoft KB Article 297019 goes into some detail about the effects of Network PST files:

"A .pst file is a file-access-driven method of message storage. File-access-driven means that the computer uses special file access commands that the operating system provides to read and write data to the file.

This is not efficient on WAN or LAN links because WAN/LAN links use network-access-driven methods, commands the operating system provides to send data to or receive from another networked computer. If there is a remote .pst (over a network link), Microsoft Outlook tries to use the file commands to read from the file or write to the file, but the operating system then has to send those commands over the network because the file is not on the local computer. This creates a great deal of overhead and increases the time it takes to read and write to the file. Additionally, the use of a .pst file over a network connection may result in a corrupted .pst file if the connection degrades or fails."

Let's use an example to illustrate the problem and also follow the problem through to its end result.

Let's say that a user sends an e-mail message to 500 users within the company. All of these users have their e-mail delivered directly to their PST file which is stored on the File Server. Some of these 500 users may need to extend their PST files to receive it. To extend a PST, an extra allocation on disk has to be made via NTFS. This locks out the whole volume while free space is allocated and the Master File Table (MFT) is updated. While this is happening for each user, all I/O for the other 499 users is on hold.

Allocating free space can take an extended time, especially if the disk is fragmented. Now factor in multiple users extending their PST's in the same timeframe, and significant periods of MFT lockout might be observed, which in turn is seen as inability to access any other file on the volume, resulting in queueing in the server service work queues, and sometimes SRV 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2022 events being logged. This scenario might overload the disk(s).

Setting aside the example of one email being sent to a group of users, imagine if you had a couple of hundred users who each have two or three PST files.  These users have been with the company for a while, and they rarely (if ever!) delete their email from their PST files.  The files continue to grow in size - let's use an average of 1 GB as the size of the PST file.  Now consider that when each user launches Outlook, they make a request for two (or three) files, each of them being about 1 GB in size.  Then consider what happens when 200 users all launch Outlook around the same time when they get to work.  200 x 3 x 1 = 600 GB of data being requested at the same time.  That's an awful lot of Disk & Network I/O to process simultaneously.  This is a very common scenario - the file server "freezing" for a few minutes at a time while it tries to service these requests.

The queuing in the server service work queues is what causes this temporary hang. The server service uses work items to handle I/O requests that come in over the network - for example: a request to extend a PST file. These work items are queued in the server service work queues, and from there they are handled by the server service worker threads. The work items are allocated from a kernel resource called Non-Paged Pool (NPP).

The server service sends these I/O requests down to the disk subsystem. If, for reasons mentioned above, the disk subsystem does not respond in time, the incoming I/O requests are queued via work items in the server work queues. Since these work items are allocated from NPP, eventually this resource runs empty. Running out of NPP causes systems to hang eventually (logging an Event ID 2019 in the process). 

Digging down into this from more of a troubleshooting perspective, we can usually see issues caused by the PST files manifested in Poolmon and Perfmon captures.  For example, we may see the LSwn pool tag allocation climbing in a Poolmon trace.  These allocations are made by SRV.SYS.  The size of the allocation is configurable via the SizReqBuf registry value.  One allocation is made for each work item used by the server service.  When looking at this through Perfmon, you will notice a steady decrease in the "Available Work Items" counter.  If Available Work Items reaches zero, then clients may experience difficulties accessing files (any files, not just the PST files!).  You may also experience 2019 errors if the problem lies with LSwn allocations (Non-Paged Pool depletion)

Another tag that highlights the issues with the PST files is the MmSt tag.  This tag represents Mm section object prototype PTEs - a memory management-related structure used for mapped files.  Put a different way, this is the pool tag that is used to map the OS memory used to track shared files.  MmSt issues often manifest as Paged Pool depletion (Event ID 2020).

Is there any server-side tweaking that can be done to mitigate some of these effects?  Yes.  Is there any guarantee that this will resolve the problem completely and indefinitely?  No.  As an environment continues to scale up, the problem will continue to manifest itself despite all the tweaking that we can do.  At some point, the tweaking itself may contribute to the problem because we've reached a point where the server simply cannot handle the workload.

(Many thanks to Rob and Kevin from our CPR team for their technical input!)

Additional Resources:

 - CC Hameed

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

# Clive Watson's Weblog said on March 27, 2007 7:53 AM:

...I Hope! Well done to the performance team for their recent Windows Server articles, in particular

# You Had Me At EHLO... said on April 3, 2007 2:55 PM:

Windows Server Performance Team started a blog not so long ago... and one of subjects they talked about...

# JeremyinNC said on April 3, 2007 3:11 PM:

Seems to me that most IT folks are at least dimly aware of this...but what's the option? Installing backup software on every workstation and dealing with open files? Not likely.

This is kind of an "eat your veggies our you'll get fat" message. Sure we all know it's true, but that's not going to make us give up ice cream.

# Daniel said on April 3, 2007 5:07 PM:

Well, I think this is a good example of what email has become. Semi-useless and a hassle. Every company has distro lists that have all the employees and departments in it that they send announcements to. I can see that being the case a while back, but that kind of stuff needs to be posted to an intranet. Share a file with a coworker? Same thing or in a network share. Want to send a quick note? How about a IM, because that is quick.

You get a better sense if they got message as well, because they will most likely respond quickly or have a status message up. Use email for things like outside communications. That will keep the mailstore smaller. The only thing that might be bad is the mobile factor of chat, that is still limited, once that goes off it is seamless

# James said on April 3, 2007 7:11 PM:

Great writeup! I've ran into this a few times in my travels and knew it was bad and moved the files back to the local machine, but didn't really delve into the nuts and bolts of what was happening.

http://geekinparadise.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/why-you-dont-work-with-pst-files-on-the-network/

# Peter said on April 4, 2007 2:24 AM:

I think this is a very valid concern from a performance point of view and I can see what it's not supported. Really useful article.

There also other operational reasons not to have PST files on network shares:

1.) Increase in storage requirements due to loss of Single Instance Storage, lower storage efficiency of PST files over the IS. All you are actually doing is moving the storage headache and not solving it.

2.) Open files on the server that you need to backup

3.) No access to PST file when no connected to the network server unless running offline mode which adds extra issue.

PST files should really only be used to store users personal e-mail and stuff they don't actually care about IMHO. There is still a lot of user education that needs to occur here.

# Dale said on April 4, 2007 6:45 AM:

Whilst I'll admit this is a very valid argument and .pst's should not be on a network store, please suggest a viable alternative? Put it on the local machine, cool. Now how are you going to back it up? I completely agree with JeremyinNC.

# Critic the Cynic said on April 4, 2007 7:52 AM:

Technically obvious? Yes.

Funtionally practical? Nope. Many keep their some of their most valued older content on pst. If the HD goes on C:\ (or accidential delete) there's virtually no recovery. Try managing that.

# Keith said on April 4, 2007 11:16 AM:

Dale - surely you just backup your exchange storage instead? The PST file is just the local repository of this stuff anyway. The only issue you have then is of Auto-archived files.

K

# shawnbass.com - Network Administration blog said on April 4, 2007 4:36 PM:

I've always known that you're not supposed to use PST files across the network (LAN or WAN), but up until recently I did not have the specific proof as to the magnitude of problems it can cause (outsi ...

# BillB said on April 5, 2007 3:58 AM:

It must be nice to have a monopoly and live in a completely unregulated world.  In the real world, where the rest of us live, email is, in some cases, both required to be backed up and discoverable in litigation.

It like going to your doctor and saying, "it hurts when I breathe."  Your doctor says, "don't breathe then."

You Muppets!!!  FIX THE PROBLEM!

# subject: exchange said on April 5, 2007 11:46 AM:

Securing RPC Over HTTP Using ISA Server 2006 Survey Reveals Widespread Inadequacies in Email Outage Prevention

# absoblogginlutely said on April 6, 2007 1:40 PM:

At least I now know the technical reasons why it shouldn't be done - i had figured out the bandwidth requirements but it's useful for the technical information.

@keith - no, the pst is not a copy of the mail in the information store - pst's are mail that has been removed from the server and stored locally. OST files are copies of the mail on the server (and this can be recreated if lost)

However, alternative solutions would be nice. For a company that is concerned with keeping down the size of the mailstore due to the time to backup and disk space AND the fact that there is an archive function, it is natural to set users up to archive mail to the c drive and by default, to the worst possible place - hidden away in documents and settings. Not only is it buried deep within a folder structure, any corruption/recreation of the profile means the email is deleted.

The fact that users want a backup of their data in case the hard disk dies, also ensures that email is stored on a network drive - MS say this isn't recommended, but the alternatives of purchasing backup software for every desktop in an enterprise (and maintaining this) is just not practical or cost effective.

@Peter - yes, archiving off personal emails and stuff they don't care is great but users just don't do that either because it's too complicated or they can't be bothered.

As a user - i see disk space as being cheap and therefore no reason to archive mail off - especially as google gives me 2gb of data - why should my IT dept be so mean to only give me 300mb?  (OR worse - why don't I just forward my mail to gmail to let them store it all)

As a tech - yes disk space is cheap, but the time taken to backup or restore, or the tape capacity size  is just too great to allow more than 300mb per user (for typical largish companies)

One of the possible solutions is to use the pstbackup addin from microsoft at http://tinyurl.com/4s68u which takes a backup copy of pst files to somewhere else on the network for recovery purposes.  This worked in 2003/xp but not sure if it works in 2007.

It would be nice if this could be deployed as a policy (or built into outlook) with the autoarchive set to archive to a different location not in the user profile and then have the pstbackup routine dump to a network share that does not get backed up (but that doesn't help for dr purposes if the entire site burns down and no backup has been taken of archived mail)

# Marcin Gondek said on April 6, 2007 4:00 PM:

One of resosultion is use IMAP4 instead POP3 then all mail can be stored on server, even workstation disk will be dowb.

# Be Geek My Friend said on April 9, 2007 1:18 PM:

Hoy en cosas interesantes: El video de Bill Gates que aun no habias visto, 25 Videos de SCOM 2007 para

# Carpe Diem: Flaphead.com @ Home said on April 9, 2007 1:59 PM:

No sure how I found this blog but its damm good. Check out these that I have been reading today! IE7

# Umesh Shrivastava said on April 11, 2007 2:55 AM:

Looking at the performance point of view yes the article is very good for the network administrator to peep in their network.

But looking at the backup of pst point of view due to lack of centralised database this become a critical issue.

Looking forward to here some expert comment/article on this.

# Aaron said on April 11, 2007 11:13 AM:

I know that the article mentions PerfMon and Poolmon counters that can help identify this problem. I possibly have this problem and am trying to rule it in or out.

We have about 1000 PSTs on a Win 2003 SP1 file server using external scsi attached storage for about 1.6TB of Users storage areas.

Could someone be more specific in describing what to look for. The Available Work Items (AWI) hitting zero is easy to watch for but Poolmon is a little less friendly. I am watching LSwn Allocs grow from 8261 to 8409 over an hour period. So, yes, it is growing but is that a bad number or rate? MmSt is also growing, 13,305,470 to 13,360,177 over the same time period. AWI has been pretty stead at around 20-30, but seems to only be affecting processor zero. The other three processors are basically flat at 25. We see occasional dips in AWI to zero. Also, after one particular spike to zero, AWI seems to have upped the number of Available Items and is now hovering around 65 instead of 30.

Any input or links to documents that will help more thoroughly identify this problem will be much appreciated.

Aaron

# Joe said on April 12, 2007 1:51 PM:

To answer some of the comments about people needing to archive their mail to keep the ex store down in size, I would ask why?

What's the point in limiting people's mailbox size and then having them archive off to a network store somewhere?  You still have to backup that network store and those disks are still costing you money.  If backing up the store takes too long then you probably need to consider breaking your server up into multiple storage groups and backup one group in the evening 8:00pm, and the other in the early morning 2:00am or something like that.  If you still have problems then you should be looking at getting a faster tape drive or doing disk based backups and then backing up to tape from the disk backup so that your tape backups can have all day to run if they need to.

# Grant Scheffert said on April 13, 2007 12:02 AM:

I agree with Joe.  Keep it in the Exchange IS database.  You get the single instance storage benefit, and you still have to back it up anyway.  With Exchange 2000 Standard, you had the 16GB limit, but since Exchange 2003 SP2 and Exchange 2007, the size restrictions are much higher.  And the peformance storing in the IS is much better than PST's too.

Give me the reasons that this is bad logic?

# Bob said on April 13, 2007 4:49 PM:

This is all well and good when you don't have an IT policy sending you in the opposite direction.  

Leaving things on the server is the way to go for a shared inbox.  But if you have unreasonable storage limitations on the server, you've got to put the mail somewhere.  If you can't put it in a PST file on a file server, what can you do?  Distribute a weekly DVD backup of the PST file for everyone to copy locally?

# Dave said on April 16, 2007 1:06 PM:

Lots of good comments.  I would be interested to see what some of the answers are. Our organization is having this same discussion right now and we would like to know how others are handling it.

We either have to come up with an expensive archival solution or raise the mailbox limits.  It just seems that every time we set a standard we are just moving the problem somewhere else.

# Helmut Hauser said on April 19, 2007 6:30 AM:

A new KB is out to fix the event id 2020

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/933998/en-us

But as said, avoid PST Files over Network

We see issues on file clusters if terminal server user profiles contains pst files - even Outlook (on TS) struggles

# Jamie said on April 25, 2007 5:24 AM:

I've seen lots of comments above talking about how in the real world i'ts not pratical to remove PST files from servers.

I strongly disagree. There are many products out there designed to archive exchange mail. Enterprise Vault and EAS to name two. Both these products will store archive mail in a central, compressed location where it can be easily backed up thus removing the load from your file servers.

If you don't have the budget for these tools then as someone else said leave it all in exchange. The disk space you save on your file servers you can add to exchange and you'll need less disk this way.

# Yumi said on April 26, 2007 1:19 PM:

So leave the mail on the server: Go IMAP, use a web-based client (e.g., Google), cut down on the distro lists, increase mailbox size... Take all the incentives out of wanting to keep mail anyplace but the server.

# Airdesk said on May 4, 2007 1:25 AM:

Excellent article. One of the best technical explanations I have read. It is worth noting that the Lotus Notes local mail store has the same characteristics.

# dgeddes said on May 10, 2007 6:18 PM:

KB Article 297019 provides recommendations for alternatives to .pst files.  In the end, the recommendation is to stop using .pst files altogether.

# Simone Carletti's Blog said on May 16, 2007 5:08 PM:

Se state pensando di salvare il file .pst in una cartella condivisa per ottimizzare tempi e risorse... non fatelo!

# Matt said on May 18, 2007 10:16 AM:

If you have 50000 users and a federal requirement of keeping emails for no less than 3 years, you cant store them on the exchange server.  I have 3 pst's (2 archives and one working) that i have to store on a network server as backup software on a client is prohibitively expensive and the workstation is nothing more than a beefed up terminal.  storing pst's in the users home directory is the only way to guarentee backups.  PFBackup from Microsoft is good, but will only run once a day.  if it could be configured to run everytime you close outlook, we would do it.

# CC Hameed said on May 20, 2007 3:59 PM:

Matt - you are forgetting the other option - implementing a vaulting solution.  Many organizations absolutely block PST files from being created on their servers and use a vaulting solution instead.  This gives them the flexibility to maintain their archive, enforce document retention policy, keep the live mailboxes small(er) AND stay in a supported configuration.  

# Dale said on May 23, 2007 9:03 AM:

Well for me personally I've got no other option but to have the .pst's stored on the file server. We DONT run Exchange so therefore we cannot revert to the IS, etc nor auto-archive using Enterprise Vault. As our users tend to keep lots of mail (user education doesn't work here) I have to deal with hundreds of 1.5GB+ .pst's. We tried PFBackup but when 5 o'clock comes and everyone starts backing up to the network share the LAN came to a crawl.

# Perry said on May 23, 2007 11:27 AM:

If I use Exchange2003 and use .PST files just to archive old emails out of my Exchnage DB is this OK?  We have to find a way to get this accomplished so we can reduce the size of the Exchange DB.  Any thoughts?

# Dave Dillon said on May 31, 2007 6:23 AM:

I'm looking for information on how to actaually prove that pst file are causing problems on our file servers.  I'm seeing available work items running on average between 3-10 (I think this is very low) across all processors at times on our file servers.  I'm also seeing the listed pooltags using up chunks of page and nonpaged pool memory.

Can anybody help?

Dave

# stonedancer said on June 18, 2007 10:13 AM:

Oh my god. I thought our company was a bit poor but I really feel for some of you guys.  You need the right equipment for the job and you need to let the people with the money in your organisation know this rather than finding imperfect work-arrounds.

As far as I've read PST files are NOT for corporate use. They are a "Personal" store.  If you are in a business with a network environment you need to be running a mail server or in the case of larger organisations like Matt several mail servers.

You could have 300mb mailboxes for your 50000 users and still keep all old data.  If you have a good backup rotation with in an hour you should be able to retrieve any age of email be it for leagal reasons or just curiosity.

We use Backup exec with the Exchange Agent and have tapes that run:

Daily backups=Mon-Thur (4 tape rotation)

Weekly=Friday (12 tape rotation)

Quarterly=Friday (3 tape rotation)

Yearly=Friday (Run at year end and tape kept indefinitly)

You can take copies of your yearlies just to be safe. Of course these should be kept in fire proof safes.

Using this method you can tell people to delete anything over a year old an you will Always have a copy. In reality we tell users to delete items over 3 years and we also have a sending restriction in place when the user reaches their mailbox limit.

I used to block .pst creation in Outlook 2000 but now I'm looking for a reg edit/policy to stop all PST files in Outlook 2003. Can anyone help with this?

# Lor said on June 27, 2007 9:57 AM:

Supposing you did implement a vaulting solution, what are you going to do with 5000+ users PST files?

# Pete said on July 3, 2007 5:35 PM:

What about using a seperate array to store just the  PSTs on ?

I agree  the  PSTs shouldn't be there , but if we have them we need to work with them - no good trying to push the data back into the Exchange Store.

# Alister Waller said on July 12, 2007 10:48 PM:

Rather than just say don't use them etc..the link here provides a great alternative. Its uses a combination of saving emails to normal windows folders and using windows desktop search to find anything you require. very easy, very quick, its even quicker to find that pesky email than through outlook find.

You need to make it easy for users or they won't do it.

cheers

# Alister Waller said on July 12, 2007 10:54 PM:

Rather than just say don't use them etc..the link here provides a great alternative. Its uses a combination of saving emails to normal windows folders and using windows desktop search to find anything you require. very easy, very quick, its even quicker to find that pesky email than through outlook find.

You need to make it easy for users or they won't do it.

http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10877-6176378.html

cheers

# Loren Eslinger said on July 13, 2007 12:34 PM:

Here's how to get it to work.

First of all by Default users should NOT have email configure to deliver directly to the PST.  That is very misleading in the article, and is given as the primary justification for the performance problems associated with PSTs on file servers.  Do away with that BAD practice first.

Secondly, do away with the bad practice that users will can access their PSTs over a WAN.  This is just another bad practice and poor reasoning in the article for performance issues.  Of course it will be slow and cause performance issues....so DON't DO IT.

Thridly, i disagree with the general assertion that the performance problems can't be over come or "tweaked" as the article puts it.  They can be overcome...cause i have done it in a 2000 user environement on a single server.  Then i upgraded to an 3 node file server cluster with DFS running in front to balance the load behind.  MS has an article on this.

Forthly, invest in good hardware.  For my 2000+ users i am using a SAN and high end servers.  For each environment you need to size accordingly, but in generall get the MOST CACHE on the RAID controller you can or use a SAN.

Finally, learn everything you can about pagedpool, nonpagepool, sizereqbuf, and systempages setting for memory and other setting in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management].  Particularly, read up on PoolUsageMaximum setting to help with trimming the Pagedpool before it fills up.  See Microsoft KB Articles Q304101, Q312362, Q313707.

Here is a selection of notes i have on common issues regarding the errors associated with PST and other File server issues.

;When you access shares on a computer running Windows NT/2000/2003 Server from a Windows NT/2000/XP client you may experience some of these errors:

;1) Error Message: "Not enough server storage is available to process this command." is displayed during an access attempt.

;  Cause: The IRPstackSize parameter is set too low on the server

;  See MS KB Articles Q225782

;2) Event ID 2022, Source SVR: The server was unable to find a free connection XXX times in the last 60 seconds.  This indicates a spike in network traffic.  If this is happening frequently, you should consider increasing the minimum number of free connections to add headroom.  To do that, modify the MinFreeConnections and MaxFreeConnections for the LanmanServer in the registry.  This message is logged in the system event log.

;  Cause: You had a spike in user access that used all the Free Server connections allocated via the "MinFreeConnections" and "MaxFreeConnections" settings.

;  See MS KB Articles Q909262, Q830901, Q317249, and Q245080

;3) Event ID 2021, Source: Srv: The server was unable to create a work item %2 times in the last %3 seconds.

;  Cause: The Error is commonly logged when there is accumulation of work items in the server service.  This is normally associated with disk throughput issues, but can be related to other things like virus scanning or other processes that prevent the system from keeping up with the requests.

;See MS KB Articles Q317249

Other References: Q271148, Q810886

Finally consider setting the NTFSMemory usage to 2...via FSUtil.exe

Thanks

Loren Eslinger, MCSE

# Calvin said on July 19, 2007 10:40 AM:

Hi There,

just wanted to say thanks for the excellent article and the brilliant comments - great aggregation of info on this topic!

# Sean said on July 23, 2007 10:15 AM:

I agree with Loren, but in the aspect of tweaking servers to assit in alleviating the issue, you never bandade with tweaks. The bottom line is Networked PST's are shunned from the start.

There are two viable solutions for this, one make all of your users store PST's for thier email locally and use a schedule task to shutdown exchange and copy the pst to the nnetwork drive for ARCHIVAL purposes.

Second, which would be highly recommended for over 500 or so users is to invest in an Email archiving solution, this situation is exactly why they were designed. There are many low end stand alone versions and even some high end versions that will streamline right into SAP and the like.

doing one of the above will save you a lot of time and headache and the most important part is design the network to scale and grown with the needs of the company, be proactive not reactive.

Sean Davis

MCP, A+, Network+, Server+, Security+

# Matt Webb said on August 14, 2007 8:36 AM:

I have 60 m/b of allocated storage on my mailbox.  I have been at my company for 9 years (yes, time to move on!!!).   I autoarchive any message older than 20 days to a PST file on the network.  My PST is now over 1 gig.  No way my mail admins will allow a 1 gig mailbox.  Maybe I need to start using Windows backup...???

The big problem is, at least in the company I work for, is that filling up the network storage drives for personal folders isn't a big deal to the business.  Filling up our Exchange server to the point of collaspe would be a critical problem, hence our Exchange servers have much stricter policies surrounding allocated storage limits.

I'll have to look into the idea of a vault.

# David Sune said on August 16, 2007 1:59 AM:

As much as we'd all like to pretend that Exchange is there for only sending/receiving email the reality is that it has become a users filing system for all their data. PST's are the cheap easy solution for managing this but for all mentioned reasons above is a very poor choice. An archiving solution is by far the way to go but they are very costly and hard to justify. Best thign to do is to do a seach for all PST's on the network and show the disk saving by getting rid of them. Add that to a reduction of network traffic and the file system hangs as mentioned in this article and you should end up with a pretty solid business case.

# Marcel said on August 21, 2007 7:07 AM:

I'm curious, does anyone know if a file server running 64-bit Windows will alleviate the problems caused by PST files on a file share?

# Scott said on August 27, 2007 11:51 AM:

Does anyone have a method or know of one to determine the number of users on your network that have their PSTs setup on network shares?  We are trying to determine how many users are already doing this.

# Curt Coleman said on August 29, 2007 1:39 PM:

I have multiple users using multiple XP workstations from a single login.  I dont want multiple logins on these machines for a variety of reasons.  I have Outlook 2003 on each workstation set to prompt for username.  The users .pst files are stored in their password-protected home folder on the server.  I also have a public drive with commonly used docs located on the server.  My problem is that the credentials supplied for each user when accessing their email conflicts with the credentials used for the public drive.  The public drive and the home folders are all physically on the same Windows2000 server.  I have read that you cannot use different credentials on the same machine.  The result is the account for the public drive gets locked out.  Because of out policies, we will continue to store .pst's on the network, but can anyone recommend a solution for the credentials issue.  I apologize if this isn’t posted in the appropriate location.  Thanks. My email is curt.coleman@gmail.com

# JaredK said on September 13, 2007 4:04 PM:

GFI mail archiver is a great solution to be able to have mailbox quotas and also have a place to retrieve old emails.

# Randy said on September 17, 2007 5:34 PM:

Is there a perfmon counter or other place to look to see the NTFS lock that you say is being enforced while the PST file is grown?

# Merril said on October 9, 2007 5:52 PM:

Great article, explained alot I needed to know for a current situation.

I work at an accounting firm where the opposite is true of what most people here are saying.  We cannot legally keep email for over 3 years and our corporate hq is starting a policy allowing only data from the last 9 months to be available. Now we will be using ost and must make sure there are no .pst's people are hiding.

As refered to previously, outlook has become a filing cabinet for many users and even for my division-instructions on updating software is retained in our archived folders.

I'm looking for a way to export these important files from the pst's and manage them in another organizer-like-system that may be accessed and stored localy.

If anyone knows of the best way to get this done, or if its not plausible, I would appreciate the help.

# Random visitor said on October 11, 2007 8:12 AM:

Although the issue of PST-files is not new to me, I'm really amazed about the amount of people that still try/want to use PST-files (or other storage types) other than IS.

Ony recently of the our customers filed an RFC for an increase in the users' homedrive since there were a lot of PST-files and rapidly growing. After a good debate, our customer decided to abandon all PST-files on the spot. All was migrated back into IS and PST was "disabled" from the IT-environment.

It's not about the users or their habit of storing crap all over the network. It's all about cost vs. performance and a good Exchange-environment is cheaper, leaner and meaner than a segregated Exchange & PST environment.

# Christian said on October 12, 2007 5:28 AM:

Thanks for this article.

We have the same problem in our company and I searched for the answer now over month.

I think the only solution to this problem is to prevent creating pst-files and install a Archive-Software like GFIMailArchiver.

# Rolando said on October 17, 2007 6:27 PM:

I was having the same problems as many of you. I have found that Storing the pst files on a different file format(ext3) and OS (linux) instead of NTFS solved my problems. ext3 file system francments too but not as much as long as your have free space 5% plus.

I also can backup the open files with this file system using a tar. This is possible because in Linux-Samba i can dissable the oplock of the client.

I still have about 30% of my users running on a share on Windows2003 and the performance is slower than my Linux box

# Dave said on October 23, 2007 11:14 AM:

Although I have always known there can be issues with using PST files over a network our users only use PST files to archive old mail for CYA reasons. They are all stored in there home folders on the file server.

And yes I have some that are almost 3GB and many that average 500MB to 1GB. I also have users that have 20 -30 of them.

All Outlook 2003 clients are in cache mode.

The file servers we use are are 2600 and 2900 series Dell servers some with SAS attched Raid5 Arrays.

The Exchange servers are in a remote site so all communication to Exchange is over WAN link.

I have never seen this issue or event ids mentioned here on our file servers and we use a 10BaseT and Wireless B LAN infrastructure for the user community in a million + square foot facility with about 500 users.

I also work with 8 other large facilitys with similar comfigurations and never seen these issues at those locations either.

I think its all about how clean and maintained you keep your infrastructure.

I would never implement using PST files over a WAN though.

Dave

CCNA, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, Network+, A+

# Peteski said on November 5, 2007 5:59 PM:

As others have said, this is like a parent child conversation that goes nowhere. I've not yet run across anyone that argues *for* PST files, anywhere.

My Rant is that Exchange Team should have engineered log shipping and local file system HSM access to attachments ages ago. I understand they're busy, but get your priorities straight. Not only that, but if MS at least made archiving a priced option or part of "enterprise" Exchange, god forbid you might actually make some money off of a feature that should have been in the product in the first place.

It's not just pathetic 3rd party ISVs that write databases programs with no archive strategy!

Rant said, thanks for at least breaking it down from the platform side so I can use it as ammo to beg for money to buy a proper archiving product for my bloated exchange server.

# Alexandre Grigoriev said on November 20, 2007 6:14 PM:

Isn't that a lame excuse for a problem?

A bug should be titled like:

Windows "takes a dump" when too many file IOs are initiated by clients over a slow link. Not just because these are .PST files. .PST does have nothing to do with that.

The problem happens because the server's filesystem supplies data much faster than it can be sent back over the slow links. Thus, a lot of buffers are allocated to keep data and responses being sent back. This may cause pool exaustion. Sorry, a real system has to handle that gracefully, without inventing "unsupported configuration" excuses. Again, it's not caused by specifically .PST on WAN. It's caused by any high volume of file access over WAN.

# Richard Lloyds said on December 7, 2007 11:14 PM:

Is this issue applicable to MS Home Server where I am backing up just 2 computers over my LAN?

# Dean said on December 27, 2007 12:26 PM:

Wow.  Let me be the first to say that most of us do not have the luxury of asking for and expecting funds to magically appear.  There are things called budgets and planned capital expenditure.  Some of us unlucky schmoes (I'm sure there are lots of us out there and not just me) have to grovel for a mere pittance of an IT budget.  Our IT department is often told make do with what you have and oh if anything fails or breaks make damn sure you put in the extra 10-20 hours to "fix" it.  And don't tell me I can just quit and find a new job either.  Some of us have families to support and children to feed.

# SANDY K said on December 30, 2007 1:38 AM:

Can anyone give me simple steps on how to move my saved emails to a disc and out of my computer?

thank you

# Margaret said on January 2, 2008 7:35 AM:

So.... are there any known issues with all Exchange users using pfbackup to provide a backup copy of their local pst  files to a network share? This assumes that the backup PST file on the server is not directly accessed from within Outlook.

# Margaret said on January 2, 2008 7:35 AM:

So.... are there any known issues with all Exchange users using pfbackup to provide a backup copy of their local pst  files to a network share? This assumes that the backup PST file on the server is not directly accessed from within Outlook.

# Mark Latham said on January 2, 2008 10:14 AM:

Can someone please tell me how to recover the Network PST's and put them back on the local HD?

We want to take approx. 20 users network PST's and put them back on their laptops and use the PST backup utility but I want to do it right.

Thanks!!

# Mark Latham said on January 2, 2008 12:21 PM:

Sandy,

For your e-mail move to disk, see:

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA010875321033.aspx

The Personal Folders Backup tool is designed for use in Outlook 2002 and later and the operating systems that support each respective Outlook version. The tool provides a quick and easy way to back up the Outlook information of your choice to your hard disk or network server or share.

After you back up your information, you can copy these duplicates of your Outlook data to a removable media such as a CD or DVD. The backup files are exact copies of the original files and are saved in the same file format. You can receive periodic reminders to back up your files.

The PST backup tool is at the link above.

Mark

# Casper said on January 9, 2008 9:48 AM:

My question is how did the people who "have known this all along" learn it?  This post only came out a year ago, and we've been putting our client's PST files on their network share for close to 5 years.  We did/have done it because there is a severe quota limit on the Exchange server, and we have no sway (let alone control) over its configuration - only the file/print servers.  

How could we have know this was a bad idea early enough to not only not not recommend it, but prevent users from doing it themselves?  Are we the only server administrators who don't go perusing through random KB articles in our "free time", but rather tend to wait until a problem arises to search for this stuff?

If PSTs on the network is so bad, why does MS allow it?  They prevented OE local folders from residing on the network with version 6, why didn't they do that with Outlook?  At the very least, they could have popped up a warning about it.

I have to agree with Alexandre here.  How would the server problem be any different if a large number of Access databases residing on a network share were being worked on at the same time?  Why is it that we can't increase the Paged Pool memory?  Our server processor load never goes above 15%, so our problem seems solely in this rather artificial limit.

We have users who need access to their "local" mail files from multiple machines in different locations (not at the same time), so truly local (C: drive) PST files aren't really feasible.  As I said above, we CAN'T increase their Exchange quota.

Do any of the know-it-alls here have a realistic solution for our situation?

Even without much knowledge/experience in it, we're considering trying to set up an IMAP server that is only for online storage and is restricted in sending/receiving mail.  Every user would need to then have another account, but many of our problems would go away (maybe to be replaced with others?).  Does anyone have any comments on this idea??

# CC Hameed said on January 9, 2008 11:26 AM:

Casper - although the post on our blog is only a year old, the original KB (297019) has been public since 2001.  The article has been updated over time to include the newer versions of Outlook as they have been released.  The PST files were created back in 1990 by the Exchange Server 4.0 team with the intent of letting a person store a copy of messages on their local machine.  They also serve as a local message store for users who do not have access to an Exchange server - for example those who configure Outlook as their ISP Mail client.

With respect to the situation that you are running into - a vaulting solution or other sort of archival solution would seem to be a good solution as you indicate that there is a "severe quota limit" on the Exchange server.  Being able to access that archive from a web browser addresses the issue of being able to get to the mail from any machine that can access that site and more importantly it allows the administrators to centrally manage and adhere to email & document retention policies.

- CC

# Dave Green said on January 10, 2008 9:33 AM:

One simple solution that is now possible from datamills is to locate for each user the PST file on his/her workstation without losing central control.

Placing the PST on users’ notebooks/desktops reduces the daily network traffic and server load dramatically, as there is no need for Outlook to open and search PSTs across the network.

Then for corporate backup/archive it is possible to use the new PST2PST incremental backup/archive (http://www.datamills.com) to incrementally store new mail onto central organization storage.

This is also a great solution for traveling users, or for disaster situations as users have all their mail data on their notebook regardless of Exchange.

Dave Green

# Mladen Persic said on January 10, 2008 9:51 AM:

After all these posts and one year of commenting, can anyone tell me this:

(15 computers use Outlook .pst files, each over 4GB; Network is Ethernet 100MB/s)

Is this safe to move .pst files to some Linux file server? I am not asking for 100% safety! It is not possible after all. And will that slow down network little or much?

So: Yes or No?

Thanx a lot for ur answers.

# Brian Cross said on January 22, 2008 10:04 AM:

One word: Sharepoint.

Sharepoint requires a PST file be used for access via Outlook. Why would Microsoft use PST with a Sharepoint implementation that's supposed to be used over a LAN/WAN situation is beyond me. After reading all the information here, I'll have to move the PST files to my Terminal Server, because I can't get to Sharepoint without using PST in Outlook.

# Antonio Brito said on January 22, 2008 11:42 AM:

I found the solution. During more than 6 years I used files .PST in a volume Novell Netware and I never had problems. On this year we decided to migrate for Microsoft File Server and.... @ #$% ¨&¨ $   Therefore the solution is to put PSTs in one File server Novell.

# Perston Yu said on January 22, 2008 2:20 PM:

Malden,

For 15 users with 4GB you are looking at slow performance for both Outlook and network.

It makes much more sense to leave the PSTs on the desktops and to look for "incremental PST backup" software to daily backup the PSTs onto the Linux server.

I guess that your daily changes are less than 40MB which is 0.1% of the 4GB PST, meaning with PSTs on the desktops and incremental PST backup you can expect your network to operate smoothly even if your PSTs and number of user grows x100 over.

Preston

# McWoo said on January 24, 2008 11:57 AM:

I just started working with the PST files, and it keep saying that its not a Win32 application. Why do I do?

# Paul Mead said on February 22, 2008 7:42 AM:

Surely Cached mode (.OST) would resolve the network load issue as I presume that cached mode would predominantly work with changes and not the whole pst file? I guess that this may be why cached mode was introduced?

Indeed some of the searching facilities need you to be in cached mode; cached mode also allows you to take public folder information offline for laptops users too (great!). (Need to add a favourites link to the public folders you want to have access to offline).

# Dong Miller said on February 25, 2008 12:46 PM:

Unlike PST, OST is not a solution to solve email storage space. It's merely a solution to synchronize a local storage with mailbox. And if the mailbox is limited in size so is the OST.

PST is still the only viable solution that scales very well for enterprise. With Outlook 2003, each PST can be virtually unlimited in size (unlike Outlook 2000 with 2GB limit, the limit is virtual at several terra bytes). Keeping PSTs on desktop is the key to speed and scalability. No other solution can give this kind of scalability and agility.

# Marlon said on March 17, 2008 2:31 PM:

Is there still apossibillity to open pst files  if located on a local network (LAN) or WAN net work

# Alex Krenvalk said on March 20, 2008 7:37 AM:

For recover pst file-<a href="http://www.recoverytoolbox.com/pst_viewer.html">pst viewer</a>,All of your contacts, mails, messages, tasks and calendars are stored on mail server and there's no way to extract it offline,will help you to restore your data from files with *.pst and *.ost extension,tool will work under all supported versions of Microsoft Windows operating system, as well as with Microsoft Outlook,pst viewer can retrieve all contents as a number of files in *.vcf, *.txt and *.eml formats.

# Jack Handy said on March 21, 2008 8:40 PM:

Once someone implement a company wide .pst solution across the network it's uncanny how the implementation can turn your IT operations department upside down and riddle it with fallout ranging from backup, rdp, and overall visibility issues that are totally unsolvable. If you can prevent .pst files from being saved and update across the network it would be your best bet in maintaining your department’s sanity. One such solution offered up to us was to get a GPO in place to prevent .pst from being saved on network shares.

# William said on March 27, 2008 9:50 AM:

We have this same issue right now, but without any of the event ID's. We just migrated a new server to replace and old one that we had and since then we've been having issues with users and large PST files. It's weird becuase on the old server there were no issues.

# Ronan said on April 9, 2008 9:10 AM:

Is there n outlook plugin that simulates a personal folder but stores the files on a flat file system.

Also is the above stated problem going to be an issue with large database files Access(1 or 2 gb) or large powerpoint files (few hundred mb) etc etc. As Im experiencing painful slowdows and this problem with PST seems to be right on the money

# Ronan said on April 9, 2008 9:11 AM:

Is there n outlook plugin that simulates a personal folder but stores the files on a flat file system.

Also is the above stated problem going to be an issue with large database files Access(1 or 2 gb) or large powerpoint files (few hundred mb) etc etc. As Im experiencing painful slowdows and this problem with PST seems to be

# George P. White said on April 14, 2008 2:41 PM:

I have Outlook Calendar on two machines, I want them to be together.  Also my contacts in Outlook need to be the same on both machines.  In XP I could find my Outlook.pst, copy it from one machine and paste it into the other machine with a flash drive.

I now have a Vista machine and Outlook 2007 and I can't find my Outlook. pst file so I can transfere it to the second machine.

What do I do?

# Amit said on May 7, 2008 7:29 AM:

try this...

CopySharp V1.0 is a GUI tool for copying open/in process files.

It is inspired by robocopy and vshadow.

CopySharp V1.0 requires Microsoft® Windows® Server 2003, Microsoft® Windows® XP

I have lots of issues posted over net regarding copying/renaming/moving of files fails due to the no of reasons like file is in process or opened by some application etc.

For example:

On going to the location of the .pst file, I can rename, but not copy or move. "Error 0x80070021: The process cannot access the file because another process has locked a portion of the file."

There are no processes using this file as I have tried to access the same file from another computer to the network drive. I have also tried to use "unlocking" tools which say the file is not locked by any process.

CopySharp addresses the same issue. And can easily copy the same kind of files.

Locate it at: www.amitchaudhary.com

# Steve said on May 11, 2008 5:13 AM:

The only viable solution which we could find for our 5,000 email users is to move PST files to the users' machines.

This freed 7.5TB of first class storage, reduced BW utilization, and increased Outlook speed (dramatically for our branch office users). Then for central retention we use PST2PST that works incrementally and able to backup open PST file.

# Mike Reubens said on May 13, 2008 10:50 AM:

Interesting Blogg...

I'm currently working on a project to archive all old email data both in PST files and in the Exchange Mailstore using Zantaz EAS. We have been doing this for over 1 year now and we are close to the end.

The software comes with tools to automatically suck PST data back into the mailbox in it's present folder structure, stub it so that users can just double click on the stub\shortcut in Outlook to view an archived mail, and archive it to a dedicated archive. Although it is very expensive we managed to convince the business that we needed this badly for the 4000+ users otherwise we were going into email meltdown.

In my opinion PSTs are the devil incarnate, they have caused a huge amount of problems over the years and we are moving towards seeing the back of them forever. I urge any cmpany with funds to look at a corporate email archiving solution. It will save you server space, remove corrupt PST management from your helpdesk and allow users to work seemlessly without restriction.

By the way, the PSt backup tool causes as many issues as it relieves by creating many copies of PST files with (Vx) at the end. I have found home directories with over 15gb of PST data which were all duplicates. A nightmare to be honest as servers creaked with the load.

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(optional)
(required) 

About CC Hameed

I joined Microsoft as a Support Engineer on the Performance team in September 2005. Prior to that I spent a couple of years working the late night shift on our Platforms 24x7 team. Working for Microsoft was always a dream job - so I am living the dream! I was on the Windows Vista Beta team in 2006, which was one of the coolest projects I have ever worked on, until I took on the task of driving the AskPerf Blog. As you can tell by my logo, I am a huge Manchester United fan and I have successfully managed to brainwash my two daughters into sharing my passion for the Red Devils much to the dismay of their mother! I also coach both my daughters' soccer teams. In addition I am an avid MMO gamer, and have an extensive DVD movie collection.

This Blog

Syndication

Page view tracker