Chris

Hi Adam, are you able to create a support ticket and send us the log files of the case with the tagging issue? Perhaps there is an error message that explains what you are seeing.

Hello Adam, We are working on new functionality that would make this a lot easier. For now, I would advise to try to reduce the set as much as possible, as you did with a date search, and then sort on the Senders and Receivers columns (use CTRL-clicking). That way the emails with the same sender and receiver setup will be adjacent in the table, which helps with the manual filtering. I see what you mean now. I will consult our developers for feedback. What Intella version are you using? Makes sense. I will file a feature request for this. Thanks for your feedback!

Hi Dougee, This question has come up several times already. We understand the use case. It's something that we plan to add to a future release. Whether that will be a permanent removal operation or just a method to hide certain information remains to be seen. Permanent removal is preferred when you want to be able to hand over entire cases to other parties, especially opposing parties, but it has some technical database implications. Just hiding items is a lot easier to realize and also lets the user unhide items, which may be a good thing in some other cases.

Hello Adam, Great piece of feedback! I'm replying to each item separately. There are indeed ways to do what you want, but in a slightly different way. We love to hear whether our approach works for you or if you still see room for improvement. Adding a "Reverse selection" to the Details' context menu is certainly a possible refinement, I'll add that to our list. Note that you can use the Cluster Map to your advantage here: search for all items, search for all tagged items, and you see the overlap and remaining items visualized. Also sorting on the Tags column will put all untagged items at the bottom, though that works less well when you are using multiple tags. You are right, with keyword search all senders and receivers are put together in the same document field. We plan to add advanced search abilities to the Email Address facet, like sorting on name or email address, grouping by host, etc., that will help to some extent. Having that same capability in keyword search makes sense though. Besides using the Cluster Map, you can also use the Exclude option in the Tags facet: select the tag, click on the arrows in the Search button and choose Exclude. Any search results will then be filtered. Query results will be updated immediately, though you will have to click in the Cluster Map to force the Details table to update. I see your point. The closest you can get now is by clicking on the column header(s) to sort on those columns. The items that you are interested in are then adjacent at the top or bottom of the list. This is indeed surprising. Are you able to show us a (redacted) screenshot that shows this? Perhaps we can then see how this happened. Many thanks for your feedback, we greatly appreciate it!

Hello Adam, For Intella processing the WD Green drives are certainly not ideal. They are designed to offer low cost per GB, low power consumption and low noise. They can be perfect for storing your digital media or to use as a backup medium, but for typical database-like access the WD Black disks will deliver much better performance. See e.g. the conclusion of this comparison for some insights: http://www.legitrevi...rticle/1077/10/. With Google you can easily find more reviews like these. Furthermore it can be beneficial to google the exact disks that you use. Searching for WD Green I found e.g. this: http://forums.whirlp...archive/1367904. It suggests that the disk head is parked after 8 seconds of inactivity. That could mean that after processing each complex PDF, one or more disks need to wake up, which hurts performance considerably. Regardless of whether this particular page applies to your WD Green disks, this is the type of issue to look for when optimizing hardware that is not already designed for performance. I think that keeping your Windows installation on a WD Green disk won't impact Intella processing much overall, but who knows. Perhaps the temp folder or the page file is still critical. As for installed RAM: it is true that Intella as a 32-bit application can only use a limited amount of RAM, but note that during indexing multiple processes are typically active, whose combined use can go above the 32-bit limitations if necessary. Also, any unused RAM can be used by Windows as a file system cache. We have anecdotal evidence of indexing getting faster when expanding a 4 GB machine to 6 or 8 GB. With 12 GB already on-board I don't expect adding even more memory will result in any further improvements though. Finally, it may be worth looking into what memory chips are installed and if they are placed according to the instructions that came with the motherboard. Nowadays dual and triple channel memory chips promise greater bandwidth, but these typically come with specific instructions on which memory banks to use in order for multi-channel access to work. Let us know how your experiments go, we can all benefit from this!

Hello Walt, Indexing such repositories should work OK. We have had users reporting that they have done up to 9 terabyte of data in a single case with Intella. So indexing the user data on a fileserver is a very valid use for Intella. As a general rule, loose documents are usually much easier to process than PST, NSF and other mail container formats, where the complexity and size of the mail container itself comes on top of the complexity of the file formats. This extra complexity adds to the processing time and increases chances of file corruption spoiling the processing. In other words: processing loose files is technically easier. To give you some numbers on how much time a certain amount of data would take on a "regular" machine: 1 GB of PST: 8 minutes (older files tend to be slower) 1 GB of NSF: 12 minutes (larger files tend to be slower) 1 GB of Mbox: 5 minutes (file age and size has no impact) 1 GB of PDF documents with lots of images: 20 Minutes 1 GB of Word documents: 3 minutes Many other vendors benchmark against processing Mbox as it is the fastest and easiest to process and makes for good marketing numbers, but in reality you will often get different stats. So if you had a 5 GB PST that has been manipulated by Outlook for several years and has lots of PDF attachments in it, that will have its impact on the processing speed. Likewise, if you had a 5 GB Mbox file with no attachments, it would fly through it. As reindexing works by first clearing the entire database, indexing and reindexing times are comparable. In a future release we may add the ability to do this incrementally. For now, a workaround could be to create a copy of those files that have been changed since a certain date and time and add that as a separate Folder source to an existing case that already holds the older documents. That only works when a file's contents and location is static once added, so this will not always be a viable option.