Subscribe to Windows IT Pro
April 19, 2007 12:00 AM

Outlook Performance: Cached and Uncached

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #95829
Rating: (6)

On April 13, Microsoft released an update for Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 that addresses performance problems with large mailboxes. The Microsoft article "Description of the update for Outlook 2007: April 13, 2007" describes what the patch fixes. I regularly use three different Outlook 2007 profiles against three different Exchange Server organizations, and I've occasionally noticed poor performance on one particular server. I eagerly installed the patch and found that, as promised, it helped improve the performance of Outlook 2007 on that server. However, I decided to experiment a bit and found an even more dramatic improvement from doing something that I'd never done before: I turned off Cached Exchange Mode.

I decided to turn off cached mode after receiving an email message from a friend who was extolling the virtues of using the online mode; among the benefits he mentioned was the nice break from email when he was flying or in other environments where he couldn't get a live network connection! I have a desktop computer that enjoys good connectivity but has limited disk space, so I thought I'd give online mode a try and see how my experience went.

As with most other Outlook users, I welcomed with open arms the advent of Cached Exchange Mode in Office Outlook 2003 because it smoothed over bumps in network or server performance, along with giving me a reliable offline copy of my mailbox data. Turning cached mode off to get better performance seems a little counterintuitive, especially since the reported problems with Outlook 2007 all had to do with performance on the client and not with cached mode itself. The problem was caused by changes the Outlook team made in Outlook 2007 to better support Windows Desktop Search (for more details, see Will Kennedy's blog post. When working with large .ost or .pst files, Outlook 2007's performance could be significantly slowed, sometimes in unpredictable ways. The recent update improves Outlook performance with these large files, and in my testing (and in reports from other users and Microsoft MVPs), it seems to do a great job. I commend Microsoft for moving quickly to address this problem instead of making users wait for a full service pack release.

What about my testing? My experience with online mode has been good so far because all three of the servers I use with this machine are lightly loaded, well-maintained, and well-connected to the network. I plan to keep cached mode active on my laptops because when I travel I often need offline access to email—to say nothing of the horrors of finding connections in random locations around the world! Cached mode is also required if you want to use Outlook's Junk E-mail Filter; it doesn't run when Outlook is in online mode. Furthermore, cached mode offers the advantage that your email delivery appears to continue without interruption unless the server is completely unavailable. Don't underestimate the importance of this last advantage; many users (and administrators, and help desk personnel) have found it to be the best reason to stick with cached mode.

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • matt
    5 years ago
    Apr 26, 2007

    Waste of 5 mins reading time ..... sorry but a fairly pointless article.

  • James
    5 years ago
    Apr 23, 2007

    When OL2003 came out, cached mode seemed great from an admin perspective as it would significantly reduce the load on the exch server and enable consolidations as users could get their normal desktop experience (perceived) across 'not-so-well-connected' links.. I can't say either of these reasons quite surfaced to be what they suggested, but i still think both modes have a real use.
    Would be nice to know what the other virtues and benefits were that you're friend mentioned. Thanks.

  • PAUL
    5 years ago
    Apr 20, 2007

    That's a fair comment-- thanks for pointing it out. However, let's face it: Outlook user satisfaction is all about perceived performance. I wasn't necessarily interested in measuring the actual perf difference for my environment for two reasons: it wouldn't tell me (or you) anything about perceived perf, and it wouldn't provide results that would be meaningful outside the context of my network & Exchange servers. (not to mention that UPDATEs are only 500-700 words, not much space for a meaty article on Outlook perf!)

  • handl@rcn.com
    5 years ago
    Apr 20, 2007

    I looked forward to reading the meat of this article only to find there is none! No quantifiable figures on how Outlook performs with CEM on or off and it finishes with a restatement of all the reasons we already know for why we should use this feature.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.