Hoping to provoke a discussion with this question... We've just learned that someone on our team has set their personal document library to record version history, but did not set an upper limit. Over the course of four years they've run their version history on a particular .xls file up to over 400 records. Our SharePoint team discovered this trove and asked the user to cut the number down to around 50 versions. The user balked at this, saying that this was his archive and he needed everything in the history. My question: Is this a good practice, using version history as an archive? In my opinion, the user should be making named backups at reasonable intervals for the purposes of keeping a historical record--leaving the version history to act as a bulwark against a corrupted files and accidental data loss. Any opinions?

It's a terrible practice in my opinion because there is no fast way out of the box of moving (say) versions 1-50 in bulk to another location. If he had named the files Name-1. -2 etc. (for instance) then he could just select the earliest 50 copies (sort by name) and copy them out by various methods. If your system had gone down completely (with all data lost) then of course having versions wouldn't have saved him - whereas the occasional backup copies off-site would have done. Anyway. Terrible idea. Mike Walsh P.S. He might of course have been using versions because using Name-1; Name-2 etc. would mean full copies (i.e. full file sizes) would be made everytime he added a new copy. unfortunately for that argument versions in SP also add full copies (with full files sizes) to the database. SP 2010 "FAQ" (mainly useful links): http://wssv4faq.mindsharp.com/default.aspx WSS3/MOSS FAQ (FAQ and Links) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/default.aspx Both also have links to extensive book lists and to (free) on-line chapters

Thanks, Mike. I've communicated this back to our management and the user, with the hope that we implement a procedure similar to what you suggest. McGinley