Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply

Act.outlook integration mem leak? errors? slow

New Member
Posts: 5
Country: United States

Act.outlook integration mem leak? errors? slow

Using Wondows XP and ACT 2010, and Outlook 2003.

 

Installed Act in Feb.  worked ok integration a little slow but ok.

 

Upgraded in April to the latest SP1 update and things are very difficult to use.

 

ACT.outlook.services integration slowly uses up resources "memory" about every 5 seconds the amount increases.  The system slowly crawls to a halt and in about 2 hours I have to reboot.  If left to its own for about 2.5 hours Act.outlook.services will error out.  IF this happens upon the next reboot act.outlook.services will not start up and the system will need another reboot to have act available in outlook. 

 

The only thing I can think of is to disable the service somehow until Sage comes out with a new patch and hope it fixes it.  I have seen others with various problems with act.outlook.services but no solutions.

 

any ideas?

 

 

Rick

 

Platinum Elite Contributor
Posts: 6,537
Country: USA

Re: Act.outlook integration mem leak? errors? slow

Hello Rick,

If the Quick Attach service is slowly consuming memory, this usuallu means there are one or more messages that cannot be attached but the service is continously trying to attach them. There are a couple of things you can do:

 

First, turnoff the the attach service by opening your Task Manager, under under the Processes tab, end process on Act.Outlook.Service.exe. Then close ACT! and Outlook.

 

1) Add additional error handlers if needed. The error causing the message(s) to fail attach may not be in the list of error handlers, so adding these errors will prevent them getting caught in a loop. More information and instructions can be found in KB Article 26089

 

2) Delete contents of History Queue folder. If there are a number of emails that cannot be attached, then these can back up the HIstory Queue folder and prevent other emails from attaching. The instructions for this can be found in the section called History Queue Folder in KB Article 19948.

 

After you have completed these procedures, you can restart the Act! Outlook service by browsing to C:\Program Files\ACT\Act for Windows and double-clicking the Act.Outlook.Service.exe file. You can then reopen Outlook and ACT!.

Greig Hollister

Note: Effective 6/1/13, Sage no longers provides support for the Act! software. This is now provided by Swiftpage.

New Member
Posts: 5
Country: United States

Re: Act.outlook integration mem leak? errors? slow

Greig,

Thank you for the reply.  I don't know if it is pertinent to this situation but if there is anything in the que to connect as history or not this still happens.  I just checked the waiting to be attached tab and there is nothing there but the act.outlook.services are taking up 1.25 GB of mem looking at the task manager.

 

Does this change your recomendations?

 

 

Thanks

 

rick

 

Platinum Elite Contributor
Posts: 6,537
Country: USA

Re: Act.outlook integration mem leak? errors? slow

Not from what you have told me. The only reason I know of that service would be using memory is if it was trying to attach an email.

Greig Hollister

Note: Effective 6/1/13, Sage no longers provides support for the Act! software. This is now provided by Swiftpage.

New Member
Posts: 14
Country: Australia

Re: Act.outlook integration mem leak? errors? slow

Greig,

 

I have exactly the same problem as the OP and the problem is that despite being set to clear unattached messages after 1 day, these messages are never being cleared.  This was not a problem before the SP1 "hotfix" so I suspect something got broken in there.

 

I'd rather Act fix the problem rather than telling people to manually clear the queues.  Functionality like this eating a gig of RAM is totally unacceptable and should warrant an urgent fix from the vendor.

New Member
Posts: 5
Country: United States

Re: Act.outlook integration mem leak? errors? slow

Just a heads up, the latest hotfix 2 to the SF1 has solved this issue.