Outlook / Mastercam conflict?

[chris m]

I have encountered a 'new' problem and I am hoping one of you computer studs can help me out:

 

I am running Microsoft Outlook 2003 in cache mode from an Exchange Server [i have no idea what that actually means, but that's what the IT guy says] and when I run Mastercam [running V9.1 SP2] my Outlook performance is incredibly slow. I used to be in non-cache mode and I didn't seem to have this issue but we run cache mode now to 'deal with junk mail better' so I don't think going back is an option. I run Windows 2000 Pro on my box if this is relevant.

 

Thanks in advance

 

C

 

[ 02-27-2006, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: chris m ]

[Bullines]

quote:

---

I am running Microsoft Outlook 2003 in cache mode from an Exchange Server

[i have no idea what that actually means, but that's what the IT guy says]

---

It means that your email is stored locally on your computer once it's received by the Exchange Server. If your network connection drops, you'd still be able to access your existing email. On the other hand, if you were running Outlook in non-cached mode, email would always sit on your Exchange Server - if your network connection drops, you can't see any of your email.

 

I don't think the fact that you're running Outlook in cached mode directly impacts Mastercam's performance. However, if you have antivirus software and/or anti-spyware software and/or client-side spam filtering software, then that can cause quite the performance hit on your computer. The reason being, every time you receive email, all of this software would start scanning your email, causing that drive to thrash like a mutha.

 

A good plan of action? Here's what I'd do.

 

[*]Client computers have antivirus software installed

[*]Client computers have no antispyware installed. Teaching users about spyware, having good Internet policies, and system lock-downs are better and don't consume computer resources that Mastercam needs.

[*]Spam filtering should be done on the Exchange Server - not the client's computer

[chris m]

Chris

 

Thanks for the quick response. It isn't really Mastercam's performance that suffers as much as Outlook's. It gets to the point that I can't even type a reply to an email while Mastercam [minimized / maximized, doesn't matter] runs because Outlook just doesn't respond. I think that we do have all of that anti-this and anti-that stuff running on the individual computers. We used to run all of that on the server only [i think] but so much 'good' email was getting canned by the server that I think we switched over to our current setup to allow a little more in. I think my IT guy described it as a choice between high-performance / low functionality and lower performance / higher functionality.

 

C

[Bullines]

quote:

---

I think we switched over to our current setup to allow a little more in. I think my IT guy described it as a choice between high-performance / low functionality and lower performance / higher functionality.

---

Good server-side spam filtering software for Exchange should allow the administrator to deal with false-positives and pass them along.

Even better software allows the administrator (or even the users) to train the filter.

 

If that's the route your company will be going, then defragmenting your drive often would be a way to alleviate some of the sluggishness. You want your PST file to be in tip-top shape as much as possible.

[chris m]

Chris

 

One problem we have is that we only have one person here to deal with ALL computing and information management for 70-80 users and a sh!tload of different software, competency levels, etc, so anything that requires him to actually perform the work himself [ie setting filters for individual users] must be triaged and things like this obviously have a VERY low priority. Since only 2 of us run Mastercam often I can't dictate how the whole system works.

 

C

[Bullines]

quote:

---

[ie setting filters for individual users]

---

Good filters should not require per-user filters.

 

quote:

---

we only have one person here to deal with ALL computing and information management for 70-80 users

---

Poor guy.

[Keith Graydon]

Interesting topic.

I have also seen a performance hit on Outlook 2003 (Office Pro) when i run MUlTIPLE sessions of MasterCam. Outlook seems to bog down only during the Send/Recieve routine. Annoying but it doesnt ruin my day.

 

-Keith

[Greg Williams]

Hi Chris,

 

I run Outlook 2003 in Cache mode on my laptop with mastercam V9.1 and X,

I have noticed that Outlook 2003 definatly seems to be slower than 2000. I think this decrease in performance is more related to the exchange server than outlook itself.

[chris m]

Thanks for the input Keith, Greg, and Chris; I appreciate it. My IT guy is a lurker here and read the thread yesterday afternoon. It seems like the performance really drops off sharply with multiple sessions so I'll just close Outlook when running like that for the time being.

 

C

[Quickmike]

I am running Windows 2000 with outlook. I have only 512meg of ram. I can run mutiple sessions of MC with no problems. If I have outlook open with 1 session of MC everything is ok. If outlook is running and I attempt to run a 2nd session of MC I experience problems. I suspect a shortage of ram to be my culprit. You may try adjusting the ram allocations and try to see if they effect the situation.

[Bullines]

True enough, Quickmike. Outlook is a bit of a beast. On my notebook, Outlook 2003 uses 73MB of RAM, my OST is 374MB and I have an open PST file of archives that's 244MB. If I had a client-side spam filter (in addition to the basic one included with Outlook 2003), that would be a noticable performance hit when it touches my 374MB OST file each time email arrives. Solution? Don't save an email

 

quote:

---

I think this decrease in performance is more related to the exchange server than outlook itself.

---

What makes you think that? You're not running the mail server on your Mastercam workstation, are you?!?!?