On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Andrew S. Baker<[email protected]> wrote: > Ultimately, it's a factor of single-instance storage.
It seems to me that, in the general case, it should be possible to have both SIS and individual element restores. Assume SIS is implemented as a reference counted system of blobs, with mail folders being a list of references to those blobs. On a restore of a mail folder, for each element, check to see what blob the reference points to. If it isn't there, restore the blob before you restore the reference. If it is there, just restore the reference, and increment the reference count. Unix has been doing this in the filesystem with hard links for 30+ years now, so the general concept is certainly feasible. Now, Exchange's design may not lend itself to this technique, for whatever reason. But that's not "SIS means you can't do restore of a single mailbox", that's "Exchange's design means you can't do restore of a single mailbox". As I've said, there may be good reasons for this design aspect, or it may just be historical accident. I have no idea. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
