Outlook 2013 better at cleaning up PST/OST Database?

Hi,

I have several clients that have large Outlook 2010 Exchange databases. One in question is about 39GBs. However, when checking on properties and folder size, the local and server folder size is actually only about 24GBs.

Per Microsoft's documentation, Outlook is mean to autocompact itself when the computer is idle and will only leave about 5% of "white space" for performance reasons in the Outlook Database.

Doesn't look like its doing it, maybe its because the database is too big and to compact something like that on a regular basis to clean it up would be a very time intensive job.

Or Outlook doesn't think the computer is ever "idle". I guess the question is, what is "idle" in this case? Could an online backup in the background think that its not "idle"?

Does anyone know if Outlook 2013 does a better job at keeping down the size of the Outlook Database? I noticed the other day when I set the slider for one user from keeping 1 year to 6 months of cached data it immediately reduced the database (.OST) by a large chunk, immediately cleaning up space. I'm wondering if this is also the case for the continued maintenance of the database or not. Any insight would be helpful.

Thanks.
RFVDBAsked:
Who is Participating?
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

JohnBusiness Consultant (Owner)Commented:
I have Outlook 2010 on my Windows 7 machine and Outlook 2013 on my Windows 8 machine. I file my email and clear out my Inbox every Saturday Morning. I compact both PST files and they both take the same amount of time to compact.

Both systems archive every 2 months and when that happens, I compact again. Outlook 2010 always takes longer to compact after archiving than Outlook 2013.

So Outlook 2013 may be a bit more efficient at maintaining a PST file but it has not eliminated the need to do some manual and regular maintenance.
0
Seth SimmonsSr. Systems AdministratorCommented:
you're talking about 2 different technologies here
outlook is the client while exchange is the server
what do you mean by 'outlook exchange database'?  what is 39gb?

the fact that the server and local (cached, ost) size is about the same indicates there is little whitespace
i've never seen outlook (prior to 2013) automatically compact an ost file in the background but have seen it for a pst file
0
David Johnson, CD, MVPOwnerCommented:
The database file on the server will not be compacted by the client, the client can only compact the .ost local file.
0
Ultimate Tool Kit for Technology Solution Provider

Broken down into practical pointers and step-by-step instructions, the IT Service Excellence Tool Kit delivers expert advice for technology solution providers. Get your free copy now.

RFVDBAuthor Commented:
I'm talking about the local .OST on the client workstation. The actual .OST is about 39GBs however in Outlook when you find out the folder size, its about 25GBs.

In this article it states that Outlook will automatically compact your Outlook database:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/289987
0
JohnBusiness Consultant (Owner)Commented:
Any insight would be helpful.  <-- I have both Outlook 2013 and 2010 on different computers and operating systems as noted above. By and large I must compact manually. It does not happen by itself.
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Seth SimmonsSr. Systems AdministratorCommented:
then follow the steps in that article to compact the ost manually and you'll recover nearly 14gb of disk space
it can do it automatically but is conditional
0
JohnBusiness Consultant (Owner)Commented:
@RFVDB  - Thank you and I was happy to help.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
Outlook

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.

Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.