Win 11 Laptop and desktop using Outlook perpetual license - how to sync, on onedrive or similar?

ToneControl

Has anyone got any tips on best guidance page/youtube for this please?

I have ~40GB of pst files, I want to use on both a laptop and home desktop PC with Office Pro plus 2021, so I don't have a 365 account or onedrive other than the basic free one at present

guitartango

You could stick the Pst files on a local share, then point Outlook at the files. Just make sure that your laptop or computer are not accessing the files at the same time.40gb seems a lot of email?

guitartango

one drive may work for you, but may slow outlook down with multiple pst files

DuploLicks

Things might have improved but historically putting PSTs on something other than a local disk means network connectivity issues could corrupt the PST

Do you need simultaneous access from both devices? If not then an external HDD/SSD might do it (with a regular backup routine)

Snags

OneDrive won't sync an open PST. Which is good, cos it's less likely to get buggered.

If you've got that much mail and you want it synced then you should really use a suitable IMAP or Exchange server and let the local copies take care of themselves. Trying to sync large PST files will just cause you aggro, not least because unless things have changed, the sync systems don't see the deltas, so need to do the whole file each time. 

Your other option is to set a delay on message deletion from the server (I'm assuming POP) so that each machine downloads their own copy. Then you just have to worry about Sent items (cc yourself) and getting the overlap right. Although if you file mail into subfolders that aspect won't replicate. 

So go with option one and use a mail server technology that's designed for central access. 

ToneControl

guitartango said:

You could stick the Pst files on a local share, then point Outlook at the files. Just make sure that your laptop or computer are not accessing the files at the same time.40gb seems a lot of email?

I have 10+ pst files, going back 25 years

I had assumed Outlook would just worh with a local cached view of the onedrive storage

ToneControl

guitartango said:

one drive may work for you, but may slow outlook down with multiple pst files

yes, local access seems most desirable.
In the past I've tolerated my Mac laptop just seeing what currently hosted on my ISP and gmail accounts, and leaving the historical and curated folders only on my home drive, but that does catch me out sometimes when I'm away and can't find an email that has been moved to say the "Finances" pst folder, or the inevitable "Guitars" pst.

ToneControl

DuploLicks said:

Things might have improved but historically putting PSTs on something other than a local disk means network connectivity issues could corrupt the PST

Do you need simultaneous access from both devices? If not then an external HDD/SSD might do it (with a regular backup routine)

doesn't need to be simultaneous, but would hope to avoid manual transfers or a pendrive

I've had work email accounts set up this kind of way in the past, but not sure what sync techniques were in play 

ToneControl

Snags said:

OneDrive won't sync an open PST. Which is good, cos it's less likely to get buggered.

If you've got that much mail and you want it synced then you should really use a suitable IMAP or Exchange server and let the local copies take care of themselves. Trying to sync large PST files will just cause you aggro, not least because unless things have changed, the sync systems don't see the deltas, so need to do the whole file each time. 

Your other option is to set a delay on message deletion from the server (I'm assuming POP) so that each machine downloads their own copy. Then you just have to worry about Sent items (cc yourself) and getting the overlap right. Although if you file mail into subfolders that aspect won't replicate. 

So go with option one and use a mail server technology that's designed for central access. 

the current pst is 4.6GB, all the others are 3.6GB or less

I've always had the message deletion delay on.

So, I was basically wanting to sync a 40GB folder, with around 20 pst files in it.
I though onedrive caches locally, and it would be OK when simply avoiding using both PCs simultaneously for outlook and office generally?

Snags

Depends how your OneDrive is configures, but yes it does. However, I'm fairly sure it will need to sync the whole PST every time, which opens up plenty of opportunity for issues over time if e.g. a sync doesn't complete before shutdown etc

Really, truly, the correct solution to what you're wanting to achieve is not to use POP to collect your mail. Then it becomes a non-issue.

ToneControl

Snags said:

Depends how your OneDrive is configures, but yes it does. However, I'm fairly sure it will need to sync the whole PST every time, which opens up plenty of opportunity for issues over time if e.g. a sync doesn't complete before shutdown etc

Really, truly, the correct solution to what you're wanting to achieve is not to use POP to collect your mail. Then it becomes a non-issue.

If I used I'd still be using pst file for the subject-specific folders of emails.

Maybe I should switch to using IMAP for my main ISP-hosted email

Snags

Why would you use extra local PSTs? You could create your folder structure in the mailbox on the server and even use server-side rules to route messages automatically, potentially. 

I get that lots of people insist on using tools in ways they're explicitly not supposed to be used, but you're basically adding complexity and risk that's easy to avoid. 

Obviously your choice entirely, so I'll stop banging on about it, though

ToneControl

Snags said:

Why would you use extra local PSTs? You could create your folder structure in the mailbox on the server and even use server-side rules to route messages automatically, potentially. 

I get that lots of people insist on using tools in ways they're explicitly not supposed to be used, but you're basically adding complexity and risk that's easy to avoid. 

Obviously your choice entirely, so I'll stop banging on about it, though

i just evolved this way of handling 25 years of emails, surely it would be odd to upload them all to an ISP's mail server?

Snags

Depends on how you look at it. From a mail handling point of view your evolved way of doing things is sub-optimal and not utilising the tech in the best way. That you've been doing it for a quarter of a century is just because of lack of previous opportunity/knowledge.

If you'd been using a hammer sub-optimally for 25 years and then found out a better way, you'd change (I assume). It's just another tool. 

The only caveat is if your PST files are largely static archives used for reference, not live files that are constantly changing.

If that were the case then I'd be tempted to manually duplicate the archives (which also gives you an implicit backup) and then use an overlapping retention period/ delayed delete from server to maintain a consistent current message base.

But ultimately you're still "bodging" the system by using POP to achieve this. 

However, if it works for you, the purity police aren't going to come knocking and arrest you for crimes against mail protocols.

TimmyO

ToneControl said:

Snags said:

Why would you use extra local PSTs? You could create your folder structure in the mailbox on the server and even use server-side rules to route messages automatically, potentially. 

I get that lots of people insist on using tools in ways they're explicitly not supposed to be used, but you're basically adding complexity and risk that's easy to avoid. 

Obviously your choice entirely, so I'll stop banging on about it, though

i just evolved this way of handling 25 years of emails, surely it would be odd to upload them all to an ISP's mail server?

I don't think it would be odd. 

POP made sense when the act of connecting to a mail server was slow and sometimes even difficult (bloody dial up...) but the real evolution has been in connectivity. 

Something like Rackspace hosted email allows large mailboxes, unlimited archiving. 

ToneControl

OK, so I should switch to IMAP, and put my archives manually into the ISP's hosting. Would they not have a size limit?

Snags

They might, it will depend on the ISP. You should be able to find out from within a control panel/account info.

Kittyfrisk

ToneControl said:

OK, so I should switch to IMAP, and put my archives manually into the ISP's hosting. Would they not have a size limit?

Have you considered trying a service like this https://www.mail.com/mail/ (65GB storage apparently).
No affiliations, but might be worth a try to see if it will work for you.

Snags

Actually, good point - earlier reply was whilst multi-tasking. Personally I wouldn't do it under the ISP's mail service anyway, if possible. If you change ISP it will be a nightmare. You should be able to get a suitable mail service elsewhere, indepedently, for not a huge amount of money, and map your existing email address in (unless you're using an ISP-supplied email address, in which case I'd also advise getting an independent one of those and forwarding on the ISP address to that, too).

Appreciate this might be a domino effect that is off-putting, but ...

ToneControl

Kittyfrisk said:

ToneControl said:

OK, so I should switch to IMAP, and put my archives manually into the ISP's hosting. Would they not have a size limit?

Have you considered trying a service like this https://www.mail.com/mail/ (65GB storage apparently).
No affiliations, but might be worth a try to see if it will work for you.

how can they provide that for free?

Snags

ToneControl said:

Kittyfrisk said:

ToneControl said:

OK, so I should switch to IMAP, and put my archives manually into the ISP's hosting. Would they not have a size limit?

Have you considered trying a service like this https://www.mail.com/mail/ (65GB storage apparently).
No affiliations, but might be worth a try to see if it will work for you.

how can they provide that for free?

Based on a quick Google, so not totally authorative, it would appear that the free account is web access only (or possibly also via their own app) and if you want full POP or IMAP access with a mail client of your choice that's a paid extra. Also, if you want an ad-free experience.

So it's basically the minimal functionality funded by ads, and for functionality you're actually likely to want you need to pay. It's noticable that they don't foreground this on the site until you dig somewhat (although it is there) and they don't appear to publish what the cost of Premium is, which would make me slightly concerned, personally.