I've been able to cancel all my premium entertainment channels thanks to this list.
Cheers, Joe User (still looking for the perfect email client) > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Bartley > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:54 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > Feel free to write me off, I don't have a need to play the who's smarter > game with you or base my actions on your rule set. As you said, people > can take what they need and write off the rest. > > My ego and daily working status are still intact if someone does not > take what I say and find it does not apply to their environment. That > doesn't mean I won't offer my experience, just means I don't judge my > own expertise by it. > > I've been to Redmond and other private confabs several times too. Does > not make me smarter than someone else, nor close the book on what is > known by me. > > Thanks for the debate, I won't tie up this list on it anymore, it has > seen its usefulness end. > > Best Regards, > > Dan Bartley > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 16:34 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > You've made an affirmative statement as to the existence of certain > documents. How can I possibly prove that the documents don't exist? It's > like providing that purple unicorns don't exist. Can't be done. > > Ergo, you need to provide evidence as to your affirmative statement or > I'll just write you off as not knowing what you're talking about. Others > on this list are welcome to come to their own conclusions about your > knowledge of the subject. > > And I hardly asked you to do the work for me. I asked for you to provide > a basis for your assertions. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan > Bartley > Posted At: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:15 PM > Posted To: swynk > Conversation: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > No, BS is you demanding I do the work for you. Find the links yourself, > I already went through the process when I wanted to know more. You are > welcome to know whatever you want, I see you are quite comfortable with > that. After all, you hung out with people at Redmond and TechEd. > > Best Regards, > > Dan Bartley > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 15:55 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > Really, we're not talking about two different things. VSS is included > with Win2003. Using it can even be done with just NTBackup, though to > get maximum performance, flexibility and some other nifty features, 3rd > party software is required. 3rd party software is generally not free. In > addition, VSS requires more disk (in most cases way more disk than > people realize), disk is also not free. > > Extending timeouts does not necessarily mean that VSS is resource > intensive. What it means is that Exchange is a different beast from most > other applications and it proves that time and time again, day in and > day out. And I have no doubt that doing multiple snapshots during the > day is more resource intensive from a visible performance perspective > than doing an online backup in the middle of the night to a DL380. > However "resource intensive" is a phrase which while full of sound and > fury signifies nothing. A "properly sized" server alleviates the > concerns around this nebulous "resource intensity" does it not? Now this > properly sized server may indeed cost more than the machine one might > normally plan to deploy Exchange on... thus we again come around to the > costs associated with VSS. While freely available, it is not free to > implement in all but the tiniest of corner cases. > > Post a link, a real reference to why it isn't the best solution. > Otherwise, I call bullshit. There is plenty of evidence that for the > right customers and the right scenarios VSS is a valuable option for > Exchange backup and restore that no other solution provides. So it > becomes not only the BEST option, but the ONLY option. > > If you've thought about how it works and have come to the conclusion > that it is not the best solution for a DB, please by all means share > your work. Nothing I enjoy more than being shown the error of my ways, I > always find those to be the lessons I keep with me the longest. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan > Bartley > Posted At: Thursday, June 24, 2004 2:43 PM > Posted To: swynk > Conversation: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > Really? Perhaps we are talking about 2 different things. > > VSS is included with Win2003. Other than the cost of the OS, which would > be incurred whether you used VSS or not, there is no cost for VSS > separately. > > As for the second issue, if there were not an issue with VSS and > resource intensive systems, there would not be an MS official patch to > address the problem and extend the time outs. > > As for the third issue, there are articles at both MS and Veritas > explaining why it is not the best solution for backing up a database. > No, I don't remember off the top of my head what the article numbers > are, I found them doing a search on the VSS in both KBs. > > If you think about how it works, it doesn't seem too hard to me to > figure it is not the best backup solution for a DB. > > Best Regards, > > Dan Bartley > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 15:25 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > Really? I spent quite a bit of time talking with the Exchange product > group about this in both Redmond and at TechEd and got a different feel > from those discussions. While VSS is not everything some people like to > believe it might be and the costs associated with it can be quite > significant, I got no indication from them that my investment would not > be a good one should I decide to invest in such a solution. > > What about the process in and of itself is not resource or restore > friendly assuming properly sized and managed hardware? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan > Bartley > Posted At: Thursday, June 24, 2004 1:46 PM > Posted To: swynk > Conversation: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > While they do say it can be used for Exchange and SQL, and indeed you > will see them in the shadow components that can be backed up, they do > not recommend it as the best method. > > It is not as resource friendly nor restore friendly (logs, etc.) as > other more refined database backup software. In fact if you have a very > resource intensive system and try to backup DBs with Shadow Copy it is > likely to fail without a MS patch that increases the timeouts (that > answers your question on whether it is faster). > > It is however very effective on other system objects like registry and > AD DB. > > Best Regards, > > Dan Bartley > > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 14:33 > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > Microsoft provides support for it... > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Bridges, Samantha > Posted At: Thursday, June 24, 2004 11:55 AM > Posted To: swynk > Conversation: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > "This is absolutely not true. Exchange 2003 leverages the Shadow Copies > service within Windows 2003 in order to take snapshot backups of > Exchange." > > Yes, you are right....this is the theory...but only a theory at this > point..haven't seen it done in the "real world". > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Clishe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 12:19 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Cc: Jason Clishe > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > > This is absolutely not true. Exchange 2003 leverages the Shadow Copies > service within Windows 2003 in order to take snapshot backups of > Exchange. > > Jason > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Bridges, Samantha > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 10:57 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > I understand that you cannot or should not think of Shadow copying the > Exchange IS. The shadow copying feature in Windows 2003 is for the OS > not for a database. To be clearer, you can use shadow copy for Windows > or the OS not for the Exchange database. > > Hope this makes sense. We were in the same thought pattern as you and > learned this wasn't going to work. > > Samantha > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ajay Kulsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2004 8:42 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003 > > > I need some enlightenment regarding Shadow Copying of Exchange 2003. > > I have read MS article - 822896 and some other references to understand > shadow copying. What is not clear to me that if it takes typically only > *about a minute* to create a shadow copy, how long does it normally take > to write this data to a backup hardware? And while backup program is > writing this, where is data kept? Memory cannot keep so much and I don't > see any hard drive space requirements mentioned. > > Can shadow copying of Exchange 2003 only work with backup like SAN, not > normal tape drive? > > Jay Kulsh > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: > http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&; > lang=english > To unsubscribe send a blank email to > %%email.unsub%% > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi- > bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > dl.sparklist.com > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: > Jupitermedia Corp. > Attn: Discussion List Management > 475 Park Avenue South > New York, NY 10016 > > Please include the email address which you have been contacted with. > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Web Interface: http://intm-dl.sparklist.com/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=exchange&text_mode=&lang=english To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe via postal mail, please contact us at: Jupitermedia Corp. Attn: Discussion List Management 475 Park Avenue South New York, NY 10016 Please include the email address which you have been contacted with.
