RE: backup mailboxes with Backup Exec

[Ray Zorz]

Title: RE: backup mailboxes with Backup Exec

As evidenced by some that are using BLB's just fine, why go into all the negatives.  It's working for them just fine.  They are not carrying an extra 30, 60, 90 whatever days extra data in their Priv that they have to now backup daily.  They are only occasionally needing to restore a single mailbox, so breaking SIS probably isn't that big a deal.  Regardless of the design, the fact is, however kludgey you think it is, it's working for them. 

 

Thankfully some people are pushing the envelope and/or questioning.      

-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Hanks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 5:49 PM
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: backup mailboxes with Backup Exec

not to get into the whole" I said, You said" thing, but your reasoning below is understandable even if it is a little confused.  If you looked at the link that William provided, you would have seen that it referred to the "Ed Crowley "Never Restore" method" which is a wonderful way of avoiding the whole problem of Brick level backups (BLB) and also allows users to restore their own messages without having to hassle the Exchange admin. 

 

 I'm all for anything that spreads the work around. 

 

If you look through the archives, you will see a number of reasons why BLB are a waste of time and even a possible danger to your system.  I think the main points are as follows:

1. BLB breaks Single Instance Storage(SIS). (Why bother with Exchange if you want a file level mail system? Use MSmail instead. )

2. BLB places added load on your server as it basically repeats the normal full backup.

3. A result of point 2 is that you use more than twice the amount of tape and can have a problem with your backup going into your system maintenance window, causing things like the online defrag to not run.

4. Setting Deleted Item Retention to a reasonable period (30 days?) negates the need to do Brick level Restores.

I'm sure there are a number of other methods but the whole thing here is, Exchange uses a transactional database, and this form of database is not conducive to partial restores.  Microsoft never designed Exchange to allow file level restores and most of the BLB methods are a kludge to allow administrators to give their users the warm fuzzy feeling that their mailbox can be restored individually.   

-----Original Message-----
From: Leone, Michael [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, 6 May 2002 20:20
To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues
Subject: RE: backup mailboxes with Backup Exec

>I'm glad someone has got the "Brick-Level Backups =BAD" out of the way quickly ;).  I suggest you also look at the disaster

>recovery papers at Microsoft which mention recovering from full backups but never from brick level backups. (Watch for line

>wraps)

What most of these fail to take into account is that brick-level backups are usually *not* done for DR recovery reasons; they're done for individual recovery reasons. In a DR recovery, you want to get back everything. The idea behind a brick-level backup is to be able to get back an individual's lost mail (usually due to either corruption or stupidity on the part of the user). What the backup operator wants is the equivalent ability to be able to restore 1 file or directory, for 1 specific user (in this case, one mailbox, or contents of a mail folder).

So that when the CEO wants her individual mail she deleted to come back from the dead, you can get back just that, rather make her wait while you do a whole restore of the IS, and then (I presume) an ExMerge of her mailbox, and a re-import into the production server.

List Charter and FAQ at:
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm

List Charter and FAQ at:
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm

List Charter and FAQ at:
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/exchange_list_charter.htm