Archiving mail in Outlook 2002

W

wylie.sawyer

This morning I started archiving my inbox and 6 hours later it is still
going, with no sign of letting up. What's going on? It doesn't seem to be
doing anything, but in the lower right corner I see the "Archving Inbox to
C:\..." and the graphical icon showing that something is "happening". Why
is it taking so long. What should I do? Thanks for your help!
 
R

Roady [MVP]

Hard to say at this level of detail.
How much is being archived?
How large is your original pst-file and the one you archiving to?
Do you see the archive file growing in size in Explorer?
 
W

wylie.sawyer

Looks like the archive file started at 647 MB and is now at 1.1 GB. The
original pst file was 1.28 GB. So it seems to be making progress. Thanks
for your help.
 
V

VanguardLH

in message
This morning I started archiving my inbox and 6 hours later it is
still
going, with no sign of letting up. What's going on? It doesn't
seem to be
doing anything, but in the lower right corner I see the "Archving
Inbox to
C:\..." and the graphical icon showing that something is
"happening". Why
is it taking so long. What should I do? Thanks for your help!
Click to expand...


A thought. Try disabling your anti-virus program. Each time Outlook
updates the .pst file, your anti-virus program might then go recheck
the file. So Outlook and the anti-virus program are thrashing on the
same file.
 
W

wylie.sawyer

I didn't get around to trying to disable my anti virus software, but in any
case, the archiving eventually completed. However, it doesn't look like my
pst was reduced significantly, even though the archive file grew from 647 MB
to 1.33 GB. The original pst file went from 1.28 GB to like 1.23 GB. Again,
I'm confused. Does anyone have an explanation for what's going on?

Anyway, this may be for a separate thread, but I'll mention it here. This
morning I impulsively began to "compact" my pst file and its been going for
an hour or so. Its now down to 1.19 GB. At this rate its going to take many
more hours. I sorta need to be able to use my computer today. Should I
"cancel" and do it tonight when I don't need my computer? Is compacting a
good thing to do in general or will I open a can of worms by attempting it?

Thanks!
 
B

Brian Tillman

wylie.sawyer said:
I didn't get around to trying to disable my anti virus software, but
in any case, the archiving eventually completed. However, it doesn't
look like my pst was reduced significantly, even though the archive
file grew from 647 MB to 1.33 GB. The original pst file went from
1.28 GB to like 1.23 GB. Again, I'm confused. Does anyone have an
explanation for what's going on?
Click to expand...

Did you comact the PST after archiving the data? PSTs don't get smaller
after deleting things as a matter of efficiency. It's an "expensive"
operation for an application to request file system space. So, Outlook
retains the deleted space, anticipating that you'll get more messages soon
and will need that space again. Rather than requesting space from the file
system, Outlook simply reuses space formerly occupied by items you've
deleted.
 
V

VanguardLH

in message
I didn't get around to trying to disable my anti virus software, but
in any
case, the archiving eventually completed. However, it doesn't look
like my
pst was reduced significantly, even though the archive file grew
from 647 MB
to 1.33 GB. The original pst file went from 1.28 GB to like 1.23
GB. Again,
I'm confused. Does anyone have an explanation for what's going on?
Click to expand...


Archiving copies the eligible items into the archive file and then
deletes them from the original message store. Deletion NEVER reduces
the size of the .pst file. Items that get deletes are merely changed
to "deleted" status in the database (.pst file) but they still exist
and why utilities, like DBxtract, can be used to recover those
delete-marked items. You need to compact your message store to
physically purged those delete-marked items from the database. Then
the files gets physically reduced in size. Archive then compact.
 
V

VanguardLH

in message
I impulsively began to "compact" my pst file and its been going for
an hour or so. Its now down to 1.19 GB. At this rate its going to
take many
more hours.
Click to expand...

Um, your archive .pst file isn't on some networked host, is it?
 
W

wylie.sawyer

I archived, and then I compacted. Its still compacting, now down to 877 MB.
So I'm not really sure what compacting is doing to the file. I hope I will
have access to all my data that has been "archived" and "compacted". When I
say available I mean through a Google Desktop search I will be able to
retrieve old mail. Thank you for your help. I really appreciate this MSFT
community feature.
 
V

VanguardLH

in message
I archived, and then I compacted. Its still compacting, now down to
877 MB.
So I'm not really sure what compacting is doing to the file. I hope
I will
have access to all my data that has been "archived" and "compacted".
When I
say available I mean through a Google Desktop search I will be able
to
retrieve old mail. Thank you for your help. I really appreciate
this MSFT
community feature.
Click to expand...


Oh geez, a Google Desktop (GD) user. No wonder everything is so slow
while GD goes reindexing everything on every update to the .pst files.
Have you disabled indexing on the .pst files during all this
maintenance? Have you read all the articles and posts regarding
problems reading e-mails when GD is installed?

Here is just a couple of articles on how GD screws up e-mail:
http://www.slipstick.com/problems/openmsg.htm
http://www.msoutlook.info/question/64

Getting the latest version won't eliminate the overhead due to
reindexing.
 
W

wylie.sawyer

Well, I paused GD indexing. Hopefully this will speed things up. I'm using
Outlook 2002 and I've never had problems opening attachments. GD has been a
lifesaver for me on quite a few occasions. Is there an alternative that you
would suggest other than GD?
 
V

VanguardLH

in message
Well, I paused GD indexing. Hopefully this will speed things up.
I'm using
Outlook 2002 and I've never had problems opening attachments. GD
has been a
lifesaver for me on quite a few occasions. Is there an alternative
that you
would suggest other than GD?
Click to expand...


I don't bother with indexing any files, especially by having the
service interrogate the content of the file to provide content
indexing, too. I keep my data organized hence the use of folder
trees. I also don't keep every scrap of data since data does not
always equate to information. I can either waste all the CPU cycles
and hard disk wear to index the files upfront and hope that all that
indexing comes of some use later or I can consume less than that
effort doing the search later when I actually need to find an item. I
choose the later. Office 2005 shoved in its indexing service and I
got rid of it. Windows 2000 and up has included indexing and I always
disable it. It gets in my way far too often than it could help.
 
Top