Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Should I keep my Outlook OST files on a seperate Drive on my Termial Server? I'm running a Windows 2003 Server with Outlook 2010. I can install the Operating Systems, Programs, and have user's Outlook files on the C: drive, or I can install a seperate drive and put the OST files there.

We are using a third-party host that we connect over comcast bussiness-class internet, with a 1.6Ghz Xeon processor with 4GB Ram. 4 to 6 users durring bussiness hours runing Outlook always open and and other running other programs.

share|improve this question
2  
It is almost not worth having them at all. Your terminal server probably has a nice big fat connection to your Exchange server anyway. Microsoft has generally suggested outlook caching isn't appropriate on a terminal server. technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj683103.aspx –  Zoredache Dec 12 '12 at 22:40
    
Only you can make that determination. You know your system better than any of use do, especially as you've not told us anything relevant about it. –  John Gardeniers Dec 12 '12 at 22:43
    
Why do you think it matters? What are your concerns regarding either location? –  joeqwerty Dec 12 '12 at 22:43
    
When W2K3 was new I couldn't see the point in using cached mode on a TS, and up to Office 2007 it wasn't possible. With the proliferation of third party Exchange hosters I can see some use for it these days. –  joeqwerty Dec 12 '12 at 22:48
    
Thanks for the comments. I've added more details. I'm hoping for an anwser long the lines of "yes, having the OST files on different drives give better performance because of better read times". –  JLH Dec 12 '12 at 23:25

1 Answer 1

Should I keep my Outlook OST files on a seperate Drive on my Termial Server?

Yes, having the OST files on different drives would give you a significantly increased sleep comfort as you would not need to worry about a sudden mailstorm rendering your terminal server inoperable due to a boot/OS volume with 0 bytes of free space. Filesystem quotas might do a similar job for you, but are not as easy to set up and maintain.

The physical location would likely only matter performance-wise if you are either expecting significant load either on the boot volume (e.g. because of low memory conditions / swapping or program / user activity) or on the OSTs (extensive full-text search requests, export operations).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.