I don't think you read me say "they never work". I said "they aren't 
supported". :)

Two major categories of backups are supported for Exchange databases:

                [1] Database Availability Groups (DAG - also known as Log 
Shipping on Steroids)
                [2] Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS)

VSS breaks down into two subcategories:

                [1] Block level backup (this is what DPM and similar products 
do)
                [2] Complete DB + DB log files backups (also known as a 
snapshot backup, this is what Windows Server Backup does). This may be a FULL 
backup (in which case DB log files will be flushed after successful completion) 
or a COPY backup (in which case DB log files will not be flushed after a 
successful completion).

DAG also breaks down into two subcategories, although this isn't relevant for 
most:

                [1] Real time log transmission (copies of log file updates are 
shipped to DAG members in real time, without waiting for a log file to close)
                [2] Lagged or delayed log shipping (log files are sent one at a 
time to DAG members, after the log file has closed)

That's it. Those are the only types of backups that Microsoft supports.

Now, NetApp has a really spiffy backup mechanism. So does EMC. And so do some 
others. But they aren't supported by Microsoft. They are supported by the 
product vendor. In the case of any problem with backup or restore - Microsoft 
does not provide you support. The vendor does. To whatever level they provide 
support. (Now, NetApp has crazy smart people and so does EMC - I'm not putting 
them down. Some of the other vendors are also great, but some others.... Eh, no 
comment.)

Now, I don't know WHAT product you are using - and it actually isn't relevant. 
Except for database expansion (which tends to be relatively slow, but always 
occurring), most Exchange server backups reach a steady-state within 30 days. 
In my personal experience.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Rick Berry
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2014 5:19 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Exchange] disable exch2013 default logging

Well, not tiny if you're talking about image-based system deltas.

But now you made me cry by saying image-based backups aren't supported.  But 
they seem to work ok in test restores?  Or am I smoking something.

From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 7:48 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Exchange] disable exch2013 default logging

Correction: Also, the text-based log files are limited to a churn of 250 MB per 
log directory per day (by default).  Even if you have absolutely everything 
turned on, you are still only referring to 6-7 GB per day. Compared to the size 
of your database log files and databases,  that should be tiny.


From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 6:55 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Exchange] disable exch2013 default logging

The requirements are "more" because UM is on every server, whereas in most 
places before, it simply didn't exist. Of course, other new features do impact 
performance, but I believe that is the single largest impact.

Now, back to the OP: you know that image backups of Exchange servers are not 
supported, correct?

Also, the log files are limited to a churn of 250 MB per log directory per day 
(by default).  Even if you have absolutely everything turned on, you are still 
only referring to 6-7 GB per day. Compared to the size of your log files and 
databases,  that should be tiny.

From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Peck
Sent: Friday, March 7, 2014 5:56 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Exchange] disable exch2013 default logging

I don't think those are 'preemptive for MS PSS'.

Pretty sure these are all part of the 'Managed Availability' that is built in 
now.  As far as I can see, they pretty much took all the stuff that was in 
previous SCOM management packs and built it into Exchange.

http://blogs.technet.com/b/exchange/archive/2012/09/21/lessons-from-the-datacenter-managed-availability.aspx
http://www.expta.com/2012/12/exchange-2013-health-check-monitors-and.html
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj150551(v=exchg.150).aspx

Which I think is why the requirements are so much more beefy even on test 
environment servers.  I could be wrong, as I am a bit rusty on the Exchange 
side since they tossed me back on the team so working to catch back up

Someone will correct me if I am wrong on this.

Steven Peck


> From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: [Exchange] disable exch2013 default logging
> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:27:31 +0000
>
> Is there a way to disable the baked-in Exchange 2013 diagnostic logging?
>
> I see google-fu around relocation of it, but couldn't find an off switch. My 
> concern relates to image-based backups of these systems and having to seed an 
> extra semi-useless 1GB+ per day for things like this from a default install:
>
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Exchange 
> Server\V15\Logging\Diagnostics\DailyPerformanceLogs
> C:\Program Files\Microsoft\Exchange 
> Server\V15\Logging\Monitoring\Monitoring\ActiveMonitoringTraceLogs
>
> Those directories appear to self-clean, so it's not a permanently growing 
> file structure ... but it still results in a massive daily delta for image 
> backups that'd just as soon avoid seeding to disk and cloud if I can.
>
> I know why it's there (preemptive diags for PSS in the event I need to invoke 
> them) but curious if there's a way to just turn it off.
>
> Anyone know anything on this? I presume that turning off Health Manager 
> service maybe helps, not sure if there's a downside to that, or if that's 
> comprehensive enough to stop that data being written (maybe there's baked-in 
> tasks as well, etc etc)
>
> Any insight/pointers appreciated. I don't mind having that data around except 
> for the negative impact on those image-based backups.
>
> Rick

Reply via email to