Practical limits to number and size of attachments?

[rdunlop]

Okay, this is a good conversation.

John had a couple more questions that have not yet been address in this thread:  

 " - If I wanted to purge older attachments, what is the best way to do this?"

 " -Can I just delete raw files, which I assume would simply leave an orphaned file reference somewhere in the database, or is there a better way?"

I would like to hear any comments you might have on these two issues Mike.

~~~~

MY EXPERIMENT

1. I tried doing a backup without attachments; restored it as a new DB on another machine; then copied the attachment folder over manually. All the history links to attachments inside the new DB worked fine and I was able to open attachments in the attachment folder.
2. However; I then tried with a fresh DB. I saved a an empty copy of the DB; imprted users and activated them; imported contacts (without attachments); then copied the attachment folder over manually. The attachments were in the folder but the history links inside ACT were no longer present.

LESSON LEARNED: You need to back WITH attachments if plan to import/export data to a new DB.

...rd

[pbuchtmann]

I have a client with 70k plus of attachments and after the backup would not finish then resorted to backing up seperately and we have tested a restore. I think Sage has failed in this area badly as there are some practial limits and now with the SQL version being some 6 years old some clients do have 20k plus attachments and it is becoming unworkable while there is no mention of limits in documentation.

My own feelings moving forward is in two parts

a) Backup database without attachments

b) The attachment folder needs to be better in either creating a folder based on record ID and putting relevant documents in this folder somthing like iTunes does for Artists when it stores songs which means you do not push the boundaries of the operating system. These need to then be backed up.

In regards to storing emails this is becoming a problem for everyone. I find one of the best methods is to drag the email directly from Outlook to a folder and by doing so maintain it is Outlook format although I wonder what email system might we be using in 5 years from now.

As far as storing the message in plain text I do not find this a suitable method as this does not maintain the context of the original email.

[GLComputing]

---

pbuchtmann wrote:As far as storing the message in plain text I do not find this a suitable method as this does not maintain the context of the original email.

---

Actually, it maintains it the same as attaching the email, except the emails are searchable

[pbuchtmann]

Mike in plain text you cannot open the email and forward directly or reply in the original context that it was received was what I was pointing out

[rdunlop]

I agree with pbuchtmann on this one.  

[GLComputing]

I really depends on the needs ... I use Outlook for forwarding/replying - means that the emails are kept in the same folder to maintain full context. It also means that I can search the body of emails in BOTH Outlook and ACT! to find content I need

[pbuchtmann]

Mike I find that many clients are finding they need to either clean up their Outlook because of the size but also don't have exchange server so are beginning to delete from Outlook and so having in ACT as an Outlook message is a big bonus BUT

Because of the design of keeping all attachment sin a single folder this does cause its own issues

[GLComputing]

Yup ... Outlook can support MUCH more data that ACT!'s attachment folder :-(

[rdunlop]

But... having it in ACT means any user can view the email and replay or forward it.

Having in it Outlook means a user can read the text but cannot reply or forward the original email - not can he see the attachments (unless hte user manually attaches the attachments to ACT of course).

Just me take on it...rd

[GLComputing]

If I want to reply/forward, I do that in Outlook ... with Xobni, it's lightning fast to search and bring up the emails