sent emails missing when copying pst file - Outlook 2010

Have a manager here who hosed his computer so bad had to nuke and pave it. I asked him if he had backed up his pst file, and was told oh yes I saved it to the network.

After reinstalling everything and upgrading to Windows 7, I re-installed his Office 2010, and imported his pst file. Everything is there with the exception of his sent emails. He is very particular about saving every single email he has ever sent. When asked how he backed up his pst, he informed me he just "searched for *.pst then dragged that to the network share." The computer was so bad we couldnt even get back into Outlook again.

Is it feasible that when this happened, the pst file did not include his sent files, since he just copied and did not do a true export? I can't find the solution anywhere, so wondered if anyone else has run across this.

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Everyone

What type of mail account? Exchange, POP3, IMAP?

I hope he isn't accessing that PST file over the network, that's a big no-no.

YFZblu

Random rant: Users who save years worth of every sent item are some of the most annoying people in the history of history.

Obviously there are some exceptions, such as people who MUST save emails due to laws or industry standards...So I'm not including those folks.

Bokeh

pop3 account, locally stored pst file.

N2IT

Everyone wrote: »

I hope he isn't accessing that PST file over the network, that's a big no-no.

Should PST always be kept local? Why is that, what's the limitation or unreliability that occurs when they store them on the network drive

Thanks for any input on this

@OP

How did you connect the PST? Using 2003 greater or 2000-2002?

I would try to do a repair on the PST using MS 2010 utility. (The name eludes me now I rarely use it) That might be worth a shot, I got it to work on several corrupt PST files.

How large in the PST files?

busines4u

PST files should be kept local. See the a brief description below:

If there is a remote .pst file (over a network link), Outlook tries to use the file commands to read from the file or write to the file. However, the operating system must then send those commands over the network because the file is not located on the local computer. This creates lots of overhead and increases the time that is required 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.

Other behaviors of .pst files over WAN and LAN links

All operations take longer.
Write operations can take approximately four times longer than read operations.
Outlook has slower performance than the Exchange Client.

the_Grinch

Yup, had a user who stored several 18gb pst files on a network drive. We'd get a call almost weekly due to them corrupting (on top of our monitoring going crazy because he was using up most of the space on the server). Sounds to me like his archiving wasn't setup for the Sent folder and being pop3, if it wasn't set to save on the server and his local machine...he's out of luck!

Everyone

Bokeh wrote: »

pop3 account, locally stored pst file.

The sent items should be in the same PST as whatever the default delivery location for the account was using.

Using rules and multiple PST files can change this of course.

Check the folder size of the "Sent Items" folder... if it is greater than 0, it obviously has something in it that for some reason just isn't being displayed. If it's 0, then either the Sent items are in another PST, or they're gone.

N2IT wrote:

Should PST always be kept local? Why is that, what's the limitation or unreliability that occurs when they store them on the network drive

Read these:

Limits to using personal folders (.pst) files over LAN and WAN links
Network Stored PST files ... don't do it! - Ask the Performance Team - Site Home - TechNet Blogs
Why are network stored PST files a bad idea? - Exchange Team Blog - Site Home - TechNet Blogs

N2IT

Thanks for the information. I knew they are memory hogs and where a terrible idea in an enterprise environment. I also knew they corrupted easier, but always felt the size was the culprit not necessarily the file location.