RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Thanks Chris for all your help. I will be automating the backup and restore w/ the software so I won't have to do anything other than checking just to make sure the data is ok. Thanks again Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 7:26 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery I guess it all depends on how one defines cost. Restoring to another server on a daily basis would be extremely expensive in terms of manpower at my organization. A DNS change might work for users (depends somewhat on network configuration) but it's not seamless since at a minimum the user would have to restart Outlook, and there's no way to automate server failover either. So if seamless and automatic are no longer requirements, the number of possible solutions and costs for implementation change dramatically. -- Chris Scharff, MVP-Exchange MessageOne Exchange Monitoring Reporting:http://www.messageone.com/MV.asp Free Custom OWA Screens: http://www.messageone.com/m1owa/index.asp On 1/10/03 17:44, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So instead of a costly solution for us we may just restore to another server on a daily basis to minimize downtime. Now as for all the users, since they are pointing to that box, do you know if a simple DNS change to the new server would still work with outlook? Thanks Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:47 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Agreed, if my current IS is 30GB in size the size of my IS after an exmerge import/export could be as small as something just over 32K or as large as 100GB (or more). It's kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the SIS ratio alone. Kind of like the mailbox I exported to PST which was 60x larger in PST format than it was in the exchange DB. On 1/10/03 10:56, Mark Harford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
How are you automating the restore? jeff e. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 2:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Thanks Chris for all your help. I will be automating the backup and restore w/ the software so I won't have to do anything other than checking just to make sure the data is ok. Thanks again Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 7:26 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery I guess it all depends on how one defines cost. Restoring to another server on a daily basis would be extremely expensive in terms of manpower at my organization. A DNS change might work for users (depends somewhat on network configuration) but it's not seamless since at a minimum the user would have to restart Outlook, and there's no way to automate server failover either. So if seamless and automatic are no longer requirements, the number of possible solutions and costs for implementation change dramatically. -- Chris Scharff, MVP-Exchange MessageOne Exchange Monitoring Reporting:http://www.messageone.com/MV.asp Free Custom OWA Screens: http://www.messageone.com/m1owa/index.asp On 1/10/03 17:44, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So instead of a costly solution for us we may just restore to another server on a daily basis to minimize downtime. Now as for all the users, since they are pointing to that box, do you know if a simple DNS change to the new server would still work with outlook? Thanks Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:47 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Agreed, if my current IS is 30GB in size the size of my IS after an exmerge import/export could be as small as something just over 32K or as large as 100GB (or more). It's kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the SIS ratio alone. Kind of like the mailbox I exported to PST which was 60x larger in PST format than it was in the exchange DB. On 1/10/03 10:56, Mark Harford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
I am using Commvault Galaxy and though I have never used it there is an option to schedule restores. I am pretty sure its possible. Saul -Original Message- From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:52 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery How are you automating the restore? jeff e. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 2:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Thanks Chris for all your help. I will be automating the backup and restore w/ the software so I won't have to do anything other than checking just to make sure the data is ok. Thanks again Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 7:26 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery I guess it all depends on how one defines cost. Restoring to another server on a daily basis would be extremely expensive in terms of manpower at my organization. A DNS change might work for users (depends somewhat on network configuration) but it's not seamless since at a minimum the user would have to restart Outlook, and there's no way to automate server failover either. So if seamless and automatic are no longer requirements, the number of possible solutions and costs for implementation change dramatically. -- Chris Scharff, MVP-Exchange MessageOne Exchange Monitoring Reporting:http://www.messageone.com/MV.asp Free Custom OWA Screens: http://www.messageone.com/m1owa/index.asp On 1/10/03 17:44, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So instead of a costly solution for us we may just restore to another server on a daily basis to minimize downtime. Now as for all the users, since they are pointing to that box, do you know if a simple DNS change to the new server would still work with outlook? Thanks Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:47 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Agreed, if my current IS is 30GB in size the size of my IS after an exmerge import/export could be as small as something just over 32K or as large as 100GB (or more). It's kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the SIS ratio alone. Kind of like the mailbox I exported to PST which was 60x larger in PST format than it was in the exchange DB. On 1/10/03 10:56, Mark Harford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
thanks. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 3:12 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I am using Commvault Galaxy and though I have never used it there is an option to schedule restores. I am pretty sure its possible. Saul -Original Message- From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Monday, January 13, 2003 12:52 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery How are you automating the restore? jeff e. -Original Message- From: Newsgroups [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 2:43 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Thanks Chris for all your help. I will be automating the backup and restore w/ the software so I won't have to do anything other than checking just to make sure the data is ok. Thanks again Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 7:26 PM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery I guess it all depends on how one defines cost. Restoring to another server on a daily basis would be extremely expensive in terms of manpower at my organization. A DNS change might work for users (depends somewhat on network configuration) but it's not seamless since at a minimum the user would have to restart Outlook, and there's no way to automate server failover either. So if seamless and automatic are no longer requirements, the number of possible solutions and costs for implementation change dramatically. -- Chris Scharff, MVP-Exchange MessageOne Exchange Monitoring Reporting:http://www.messageone.com/MV.asp Free Custom OWA Screens: http://www.messageone.com/m1owa/index.asp On 1/10/03 17:44, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So instead of a costly solution for us we may just restore to another server on a daily basis to minimize downtime. Now as for all the users, since they are pointing to that box, do you know if a simple DNS change to the new server would still work with outlook? Thanks Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:47 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Agreed, if my current IS is 30GB in size the size of my IS after an exmerge import/export could be as small as something just over 32K or as large as 100GB (or more). It's kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the SIS ratio alone. Kind of like the mailbox I exported to PST which was 60x larger in PST format than it was in the exchange DB. On 1/10/03 10:56, Mark Harford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
I have a customer reporting a SIS of 9. However, summing up the mailbox resources on the server yields a number much closer to the Information Store file size. So I certainly have my questions as to its usefulness. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mark Harford Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 3:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
That article is fairly poorly written IMO. Not that anything it says is factually incorrect, but it is misleading.[1] Is SIS that important? There is no easy answer to that. Should it be a consideration in planning, deployment and recovery? Absolutely. [1] Entropy in the universe is increasing. On 1/10/03 5:57, Mark Harford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Agreed, if my current IS is 30GB in size the size of my IS after an exmerge import/export could be as small as something just over 32K or as large as 100GB (or more). It's kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the SIS ratio alone. Kind of like the mailbox I exported to PST which was 60x larger in PST format than it was in the exchange DB. On 1/10/03 10:56, Mark Harford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Here we go: Store Size (from bkups):29.4GB Total reported MB size: 19.1GB Whitespace: 1.0GB Deleted Item retention: 6.3GB Current SIS ratio is 1.8:1 Judging by what this shows - it would make be believe that either the total store size is being reported incorrectly by my backups, or the SIS ratio is incorrect. I'd be willing to assume the former rather than the latter, however. Weird. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 11:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
So instead of a costly solution for us we may just restore to another server on a daily basis to minimize downtime. Now as for all the users, since they are pointing to that box, do you know if a simple DNS change to the new server would still work with outlook? Thanks Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:47 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Agreed, if my current IS is 30GB in size the size of my IS after an exmerge import/export could be as small as something just over 32K or as large as 100GB (or more). It's kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the SIS ratio alone. Kind of like the mailbox I exported to PST which was 60x larger in PST format than it was in the exchange DB. On 1/10/03 10:56, Mark Harford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
I guess it all depends on how one defines cost. Restoring to another server on a daily basis would be extremely expensive in terms of manpower at my organization. A DNS change might work for users (depends somewhat on network configuration) but it's not seamless since at a minimum the user would have to restart Outlook, and there's no way to automate server failover either. So if seamless and automatic are no longer requirements, the number of possible solutions and costs for implementation change dramatically. -- Chris Scharff, MVP-Exchange MessageOne Exchange Monitoring Reporting:http://www.messageone.com/MV.asp Free Custom OWA Screens: http://www.messageone.com/m1owa/index.asp On 1/10/03 17:44, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So instead of a costly solution for us we may just restore to another server on a daily basis to minimize downtime. Now as for all the users, since they are pointing to that box, do you know if a simple DNS change to the new server would still work with outlook? Thanks Saul -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:47 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Agreed, if my current IS is 30GB in size the size of my IS after an exmerge import/export could be as small as something just over 32K or as large as 100GB (or more). It's kind of hard to draw any conclusions from the SIS ratio alone. Kind of like the mailbox I exported to PST which was 60x larger in PST format than it was in the exchange DB. On 1/10/03 10:56, Mark Harford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The reported ratio can be highly skewed by having many small files sent to many users on one server so a 1:5 ratio may not mean that exmerge would create 45GB from a 30GB store. It might be worth comparing the summed results of an mbinfo or mailbox resources export with the reported store size (less white space) to see if this really is the case on your servers especially the ones reporting 4. Let us know if you do! Mark -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: 10 January 2003 13:07 Posted To: Exchange 55 list server Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I don't know about that. I've had multi-year old servers that hover around 1.5, some that have stayed consistently over 4. What I find even more interesting is that I've started with many servers with an SIS of 1.0 - following an ExMerge based migration, and I've seen a steady increase in SIS over time, but I'll admit that they rarely get over 2-3 in those cases. Even at 1.5, a 30GB store is much smaller than the 45 that it would be otherwise. I'd call the benefit a mixture of both delivery speed improvements and disk storage space savings. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Mark Harford [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Is SIS that important? I've always treated it as something that helps make for more efficient delivery rather than something to save space since over time the SIS ratio will tend towards 1:1 anyway. See KB article 198673 for a justification of this. Mark -Original Message- From: John W. Luther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 09 January 2003 16:11 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
I'd call that more of a good reason not to use clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Good advertisement to not use Dell. - Original Message - From: Edgington, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:41 PM Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'm the poor schmuck that became VERY practiced at doing recoveries in this domain. We were initially told to move from three E5.5 servers to 1 clustered Dell SAN. My first comment was 'what if this unbreakable setup breaks in a way that the diagnostics on the SAN doesn't detect a problem... I'll end up with 8700 people without e-mail'... I was told that can't happen... well, it did... I did at least 6 recoveries in a 12 month span with 2 being all 8700 mailboxes and the others being 4300 each time. This FINALLY convinced the people with money that this wasn't a smart strategy and they finally allowed me to move back to the 'many small servers' approach that I prefer... yes, I take a hit on SIS (8700 mailboxes on currently 6 production servers... I'm backing up 200GB nightly.. full backups)... since our move back to off-the-shelf (but MS HCL hardware) servers, we've had no outages. Those in our org that are still using the Dell/Cluster approach continue to experience constant problems. John is a little off with his description... this is our current approach and it seems to work very well in my test restores. (this was developed during my nightmare, er experience with the recoveries of last year). We keep an offline restore domain that contains our recovery servers... these same servers are the target for my backups of the production servers... this way in the case of a restore I am running the restore from the local drive on the recovery server as opposed to over the network or from tape (we backup to files on hard drive). We also dump VIP mailboxes to PST files nightly (perl script that uses exmerge... 93 mailboxes) Restore steps with our config... this is based on a couple MS whitepapers... I can dig them up if anyone is interested (don't remember the titles) 1. production db or sg goes down. 2. determine if the db/sg can be remounted without data loss... if not, continue. 3. copy production TLOGS to a safe location on the recovery server for that production server. 4. reset the dbs on the production server so that the people on these dbs now at least have mail service back (empty mailboxes) 5. Start restore of dbs on the recovery server. (making sure not to checkmark 'last backup' or 'mount db'... start exmerge of VIP mailboxes back into the reset mailboxes on the production server. 6. Once the restore completes, copy the production TLOGS into the templog dir and run eseutil /cc against the location that has the restore.env file (templog location) this now gets your restored db back to the point in time just before the crash. 7. Mount the restored db on the recovery server to make sure all is well... if so, dismount and copy this restored db back to the production server as a different name (priv1.edb.rst for example) 8. Once all restored dbs are copied to the production server, dismount the reset dbs and rename them. (mark them for overwrite)... now rename the restored dbs back to their original names. 9. Mount the restored dbs on the production server.. your users now have their original mailboxes (rules, permissions and all) but are missing the mail that delivered in the time between (4) and (9). 10. Copy the reset dbs to the recovery server and mount them there. 11. Exmerge out the last 24 hours of the mailboxes on the reset dbs (that are now on the recovery server). 12. Exmerge the PSTs from (11) back into the production servers recovery complete. jeff e. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'm more interested in how often he has hardware failures. It sounds like a common event! -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Really? Care to share the experiences? I'm actively specing out Dell/EMC gear for a project and anything I know ahead of time will help. Offlist is fine, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Actually... most of the problems were a result of the SAN and it's failures. Of the 5 sites that had this type of SAN, 4 had problems. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'd call that more of a good reason not to use clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Good advertisement to not use Dell. - Original Message - From: Edgington, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:41 PM Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'm the poor schmuck that became VERY practiced at doing recoveries in this domain. We were initially told to move from three E5.5 servers to 1 clustered Dell SAN. My first comment was 'what if this unbreakable setup breaks in a way that the diagnostics on the SAN doesn't detect a problem... I'll end up with 8700 people without e-mail'... I was told that can't happen... well, it did... I did at least 6 recoveries in a 12 month span with 2 being all 8700 mailboxes and the others being 4300 each time. This FINALLY convinced the people with money that this wasn't a smart strategy and they finally allowed me to move back to the 'many small servers' approach that I prefer... yes, I take a hit on SIS (8700 mailboxes on currently 6 production servers... I'm backing up 200GB nightly.. full backups)... since our move back to off-the-shelf (but MS HCL hardware) servers, we've had no outages. Those in our org that are still using the Dell/Cluster approach continue to experience constant problems. John is a little off with his description... this is our current approach and it seems to work very well in my test restores. (this was developed during my nightmare, er experience with the recoveries of last year). We keep an offline restore domain that contains our recovery servers... these same servers are the target for my backups of the production servers... this way in the case of a restore I am running the restore from the local drive on the recovery server as opposed to over the network or from tape (we backup to files on hard drive). We also dump VIP mailboxes to PST files nightly (perl script that uses exmerge... 93 mailboxes) Restore steps with our config... this is based on a couple MS whitepapers... I can dig them up if anyone is interested (don't remember the titles) 1. production db or sg goes down. 2. determine if the db/sg can be remounted without data loss... if not, continue. 3. copy production TLOGS to a safe location on the recovery server for that production server. 4. reset the dbs on the production server so that the people on these dbs now at least have mail service back (empty mailboxes) 5. Start restore of dbs on the recovery server. (making sure not to checkmark 'last backup' or 'mount db'... start exmerge of VIP mailboxes back into the reset mailboxes on the production server. 6. Once the restore completes, copy the production TLOGS into the templog dir and run eseutil /cc against the location that has the restore.env file (templog location) this now gets your restored db back to the point in time just before the crash. 7. Mount the restored db on the recovery server to make sure all is well... if so, dismount and copy this restored db back to the production server as a different name (priv1.edb.rst for example) 8. Once all restored dbs are copied to the production server, dismount the reset dbs and rename them. (mark them for overwrite)... now rename the restored dbs back to their original names. 9. Mount the restored dbs on the production server.. your users now have their original mailboxes (rules, permissions and all) but are missing the mail that delivered in the time between (4) and (9). 10. Copy the reset dbs to the recovery server and mount them there. 11
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Roger and Jeff, I am also interested in the problems you encountered. We are in the process of implementing a Dell/EMC solution. I currently have a test bed up and running and have seen no problems yet. Thanks Dennis -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Really? Care to share the experiences? I'm actively specing out Dell/EMC gear for a project and anything I know ahead of time will help. Offlist is fine, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Actually... most of the problems were a result of the SAN and it's failures. Of the 5 sites that had this type of SAN, 4 had problems. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'd call that more of a good reason not to use clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Good advertisement to not use Dell. - Original Message - From: Edgington, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:41 PM Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'm the poor schmuck that became VERY practiced at doing recoveries in this domain. We were initially told to move from three E5.5 servers to 1 clustered Dell SAN. My first comment was 'what if this unbreakable setup breaks in a way that the diagnostics on the SAN doesn't detect a problem... I'll end up with 8700 people without e-mail'... I was told that can't happen... well, it did... I did at least 6 recoveries in a 12 month span with 2 being all 8700 mailboxes and the others being 4300 each time. This FINALLY convinced the people with money that this wasn't a smart strategy and they finally allowed me to move back to the 'many small servers' approach that I prefer... yes, I take a hit on SIS (8700 mailboxes on currently 6 production servers... I'm backing up 200GB nightly.. full backups)... since our move back to off-the-shelf (but MS HCL hardware) servers, we've had no outages. Those in our org that are still using the Dell/Cluster approach continue to experience constant problems. John is a little off with his description... this is our current approach and it seems to work very well in my test restores. (this was developed during my nightmare, er experience with the recoveries of last year). We keep an offline restore domain that contains our recovery servers... these same servers are the target for my backups of the production servers... this way in the case of a restore I am running the restore from the local drive on the recovery server as opposed to over the network or from tape (we backup to files on hard drive). We also dump VIP mailboxes to PST files nightly (perl script that uses exmerge... 93 mailboxes) Restore steps with our config... this is based on a couple MS whitepapers... I can dig them up if anyone is interested (don't remember the titles) 1. production db or sg goes down. 2. determine if the db/sg can be remounted without data loss... if not, continue. 3. copy production TLOGS to a safe location on the recovery server for that production server. 4. reset the dbs on the production server so that the people on these dbs now at least have mail service back (empty mailboxes) 5. Start restore of dbs on the recovery server. (making sure not to checkmark 'last backup' or 'mount db'... start exmerge of VIP mailboxes back into the reset mailboxes on the production server. 6. Once the restore completes, copy the production TLOGS into the templog dir and run eseutil /cc against the location that has the restore.env file (templog location) this now gets your restored db back to the point in time just before the crash. 7. Mount the restored db on the recovery server to make sure all is well... if so, dismount and copy this restored db back to the production server as a different name (priv1.edb.rst for example) 8. Once all restored dbs are copied to the production server, dismount the reset dbs and rename them. (mark
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
We've been running 3 Compaq Exchange (2-E55, 1-E2K) clusters on a Compaq MA12000 SAN now for over a year. All of the problems I've had have been because of SAN problems. The clusters have worked fine. We have had controller, disk and Secure Path problems. Just recently I lost one of the mirrored drives on one of my transaction log volumes. While it was rebuilding with a hot spare the other drive went. I lost the log file volume. Compaq is still trying to figure out what happened and why we are having so many problems. I must say that Compaq's support has been poor. One thing you absolutely have to do is to keep all of the firmware for the switches, disks, controllers, Secure Path (or whatever software you are going to use to negotiate the multiple data paths), and host bus adapters up to date. One note---we were told by Compaq before we purchased the SAN that we would be able to upgrade the firmware on one controller while the other controller was still operating--thus, no downtime. This is not the case. Our Compaq engineer has told us that both controllers need to be taken offline for the upgrade--thus, lots of downtime. Clustering and SAN is about the most complicated Exchange configuration you can have. I'm not convinced that it's worth the cost and aggravation. -Original Message- From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:37 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Roger and Jeff, I am also interested in the problems you encountered. We are in the process of implementing a Dell/EMC solution. I currently have a test bed up and running and have seen no problems yet. Thanks Dennis -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Really? Care to share the experiences? I'm actively specing out Dell/EMC gear for a project and anything I know ahead of time will help. Offlist is fine, too. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Edgington, Jeff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 9:01 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery Actually... most of the problems were a result of the SAN and it's failures. Of the 5 sites that had this type of SAN, 4 had problems. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 8:00 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'd call that more of a good reason not to use clusters. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Tony Hlabse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:04 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Good advertisement to not use Dell. - Original Message - From: Edgington, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:41 PM Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'm the poor schmuck that became VERY practiced at doing recoveries in this domain. We were initially told to move from three E5.5 servers to 1 clustered Dell SAN. My first comment was 'what if this unbreakable setup breaks in a way that the diagnostics on the SAN doesn't detect a problem... I'll end up with 8700 people without e-mail'... I was told that can't happen... well, it did... I did at least 6 recoveries in a 12 month span with 2 being all 8700 mailboxes and the others being 4300 each time. This FINALLY convinced the people with money that this wasn't a smart strategy and they finally allowed me to move back to the 'many small servers' approach that I prefer... yes, I take a hit on SIS (8700 mailboxes on currently 6 production servers... I'm backing up 200GB nightly.. full backups)... since our move back to off-the-shelf (but MS HCL hardware) servers, we've had no outages. Those in our org that are still using the Dell/Cluster approach continue to experience constant problems. John is a little off with his description... this is our current approach and it seems to work very well in my test restores. (this was developed during my nightmare, er experience with the recoveries of last year). We keep an offline restore domain that contains our recovery servers... these same servers are the target for my backups of the production servers... this way in the case of a restore I am running the restore from the local drive on the recovery server as opposed to over the network or from tape (we backup
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. I failed to mention we are running Exchange 2000. We also have an independent box on which we run the Perl scripts that do the automated jiggery pokery. At 02:45 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
np -Original Message- From: Luther, John W. Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 10:17 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery At 08:41 PM 1/8/2003 -0600, you wrote: [snip] John is a little off with his description... this is our current approach and it seems to work very well in my test restores. (this was developed during my nightmare, er experience with the recoveries of last year). [snip] Thanks, Jeff. John _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
At 10:11 AM 1/9/2003 -0600, you wrote: No, it doesn't. I've asked our Exchange Admin about the SIS, but he is out sick today. Our current setup is quite stable now. [snip] I stand corrected by Jeff Edginton's better description of our system. John _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
We had frequent hardware failures when we had Exchange on the Dell hardware. That was the experience that led us to focus on designing a setup that would allow for fast and reliable recoveries. Now that we no longer use the Dell hardware for Exchange we have few problems. At 03:53 PM 1/8/2003 -0500, you wrote: I'm more interested in how often he has hardware failures. It sounds like a common event! -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com
Exchange 2000 Recovery
We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Well for a standby server I suppose you could do that for 3-$7K. But you not going to beat 4-6 hours in event of a catastrophic disaster. Not sure what you could buy for that amount, other than beefing up your existing server. - Original Message - From: Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:02 PM Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Well, it depends on what they want to do and how seamless, seamless really is when pen meets checkbook. For 3k to 7k you might be able to look at something like DoubleTake (barely) and perhaps get a chance to test it on your free evenings and weekends. For a single server replication over a high speed LAN, it might be acceptable depending on how the requirements are defined. On 1/8/03 13:02, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
I'm more interested in how often he has hardware failures. It sounds like a common event! -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value of lots of small servers when our Dell PowerEdge equipment crapped out on us repeatedly early last year. You could probably do this with three servers, then. One for production, one for recovery/backups and one hot spare. Under your limit, though? Well, I guess that would depend on your shopping ability and the components you choose. John John W. Luther Systems Administrator Computing and Information Services University of Missouri - Rolla At 11:02 AM 1/8/2003 -0800, Newsgroups wrote: I am not aware of a budget but when I mentioned the solution from Marathon Technologies they almost fell off their chairs. I think they want to spend somewhere from $3k to $7K (Not sure, as they have not told me anything). I told them that for that price the best thing they could do is have another server and do a daily restore of the database on that box and if the main server dies put up the new one instead. What do you think? Any other ideas? Thanks -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Posted At: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 10:48 AM Posted To: Exchange Newsgroups Conversation: Exchange 2000 Recovery Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Seamless, transparent, automatic and cheap? Don't believe such a high availability solution exists. Even overspeccing a single box to ensure it's fully redundant gets rather expensive on a per user basis for only 180 users. What are the actual requirements surrounding the solution and what budget has been proposed to implement it? On 1/8/03 12:27, Newsgroups [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking into different methods of recovery from Exchange 2000. I know there are several ways of doing this. We want to be able to recover w/ out any user interaction (by that we mean it would be transparent to them and they don't want to be down for 4 to 6 hours). We have about 180 users. I know we can cluster them but they don't want to go that route because of the cost. Will software or hardware replication work and be transparent or are there any other technologies that you may be aware of? _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery
I'm the poor schmuck that became VERY practiced at doing recoveries in this domain. We were initially told to move from three E5.5 servers to 1 clustered Dell SAN. My first comment was 'what if this unbreakable setup breaks in a way that the diagnostics on the SAN doesn't detect a problem... I'll end up with 8700 people without e-mail'... I was told that can't happen... well, it did... I did at least 6 recoveries in a 12 month span with 2 being all 8700 mailboxes and the others being 4300 each time. This FINALLY convinced the people with money that this wasn't a smart strategy and they finally allowed me to move back to the 'many small servers' approach that I prefer... yes, I take a hit on SIS (8700 mailboxes on currently 6 production servers... I'm backing up 200GB nightly.. full backups)... since our move back to off-the-shelf (but MS HCL hardware) servers, we've had no outages. Those in our org that are still using the Dell/Cluster approach continue to experience constant problems. John is a little off with his description... this is our current approach and it seems to work very well in my test restores. (this was developed during my nightmare, er experience with the recoveries of last year). We keep an offline restore domain that contains our recovery servers... these same servers are the target for my backups of the production servers... this way in the case of a restore I am running the restore from the local drive on the recovery server as opposed to over the network or from tape (we backup to files on hard drive). We also dump VIP mailboxes to PST files nightly (perl script that uses exmerge... 93 mailboxes) Restore steps with our config... this is based on a couple MS whitepapers... I can dig them up if anyone is interested (don't remember the titles) 1. production db or sg goes down. 2. determine if the db/sg can be remounted without data loss... if not, continue. 3. copy production TLOGS to a safe location on the recovery server for that production server. 4. reset the dbs on the production server so that the people on these dbs now at least have mail service back (empty mailboxes) 5. Start restore of dbs on the recovery server. (making sure not to checkmark 'last backup' or 'mount db'... start exmerge of VIP mailboxes back into the reset mailboxes on the production server. 6. Once the restore completes, copy the production TLOGS into the templog dir and run eseutil /cc against the location that has the restore.env file (templog location) this now gets your restored db back to the point in time just before the crash. 7. Mount the restored db on the recovery server to make sure all is well... if so, dismount and copy this restored db back to the production server as a different name (priv1.edb.rst for example) 8. Once all restored dbs are copied to the production server, dismount the reset dbs and rename them. (mark them for overwrite)... now rename the restored dbs back to their original names. 9. Mount the restored dbs on the production server.. your users now have their original mailboxes (rules, permissions and all) but are missing the mail that delivered in the time between (4) and (9). 10. Copy the reset dbs to the recovery server and mount them there. 11. Exmerge out the last 24 hours of the mailboxes on the reset dbs (that are now on the recovery server). 12. Exmerge the PSTs from (11) back into the production servers recovery complete. jeff e. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'm more interested in how often he has hardware failures. It sounds like a common event! -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out of the backups into the new mailboxes. Some tlog juggling has to be done in order to recover all mail, but it is fairly strait forward. Each of our servers costs ~6K using off the shelf components. We learned the value
Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery
Good advertisement to not use Dell. - Original Message - From: Edgington, Jeff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:41 PM Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'm the poor schmuck that became VERY practiced at doing recoveries in this domain. We were initially told to move from three E5.5 servers to 1 clustered Dell SAN. My first comment was 'what if this unbreakable setup breaks in a way that the diagnostics on the SAN doesn't detect a problem... I'll end up with 8700 people without e-mail'... I was told that can't happen... well, it did... I did at least 6 recoveries in a 12 month span with 2 being all 8700 mailboxes and the others being 4300 each time. This FINALLY convinced the people with money that this wasn't a smart strategy and they finally allowed me to move back to the 'many small servers' approach that I prefer... yes, I take a hit on SIS (8700 mailboxes on currently 6 production servers... I'm backing up 200GB nightly.. full backups)... since our move back to off-the-shelf (but MS HCL hardware) servers, we've had no outages. Those in our org that are still using the Dell/Cluster approach continue to experience constant problems. John is a little off with his description... this is our current approach and it seems to work very well in my test restores. (this was developed during my nightmare, er experience with the recoveries of last year). We keep an offline restore domain that contains our recovery servers... these same servers are the target for my backups of the production servers... this way in the case of a restore I am running the restore from the local drive on the recovery server as opposed to over the network or from tape (we backup to files on hard drive). We also dump VIP mailboxes to PST files nightly (perl script that uses exmerge... 93 mailboxes) Restore steps with our config... this is based on a couple MS whitepapers... I can dig them up if anyone is interested (don't remember the titles) 1. production db or sg goes down. 2. determine if the db/sg can be remounted without data loss... if not, continue. 3. copy production TLOGS to a safe location on the recovery server for that production server. 4. reset the dbs on the production server so that the people on these dbs now at least have mail service back (empty mailboxes) 5. Start restore of dbs on the recovery server. (making sure not to checkmark 'last backup' or 'mount db'... start exmerge of VIP mailboxes back into the reset mailboxes on the production server. 6. Once the restore completes, copy the production TLOGS into the templog dir and run eseutil /cc against the location that has the restore.env file (templog location) this now gets your restored db back to the point in time just before the crash. 7. Mount the restored db on the recovery server to make sure all is well... if so, dismount and copy this restored db back to the production server as a different name (priv1.edb.rst for example) 8. Once all restored dbs are copied to the production server, dismount the reset dbs and rename them. (mark them for overwrite)... now rename the restored dbs back to their original names. 9. Mount the restored dbs on the production server.. your users now have their original mailboxes (rules, permissions and all) but are missing the mail that delivered in the time between (4) and (9). 10. Copy the reset dbs to the recovery server and mount them there. 11. Exmerge out the last 24 hours of the mailboxes on the reset dbs (that are now on the recovery server). 12. Exmerge the PSTs from (11) back into the production servers recovery complete. jeff e. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 2:54 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Exchange 2000 Recovery I'm more interested in how often he has hardware failures. It sounds like a common event! -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Chris Scharff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:45 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: Exchange 2000 Recovery Doesn't play hell with your SIS? On 1/8/03 13:20, John W. Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey. We have multiple small exchange servers that do their backups to recovery servers that have several mirrored drives so no single production server has any of its backups on the same drive mirror. With our database size limit we have one recovery server for every three mail servers. In addition we have at least one hot spare mail server. When there is an outage we note which folks are affected and then recreate their (now empty) mailboxes on the recovery server to get them back into email. We then Exmerge the backed-up mail out
help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery
We have a good back of our mailboxes/information store using veritas 8.6. However, when trying to do a restore it fails to mount the store, however when I try to do it on the console it will not allow me to. I've read the ms knowledge base regarding doing a hard re-mount but to no avail. Is it possible to blow away the information store, then try to restore from backup. Thanks Pete _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery
Yes. How do you know you have a good backup? Is this an offline or online backup restore? What are the error messages? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery We have a good back of our mailboxes/information store using veritas 8.6. However, when trying to do a restore it fails to mount the store, however when I try to do it on the console it will not allow me to. I've read the ms knowledge base regarding doing a hard re-mount but to no avail. Is it possible to blow away the information store, then try to restore from backup. Thanks Pete _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery
Stop what you are going and call PSS NOW! You are in over your head and risk damaging it further. Call PSS and they can walk you through everything you will need to do to safely restore services. --- Miles Holt Network Engineer Summit Marketing Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] 770-303-0426 --- Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock. - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery We have a good back of our mailboxes/information store using veritas 8.6. However, when trying to do a restore it fails to mount the store, however when I try to do it on the console it will not allow me to. I've read the ms knowledge base regarding doing a hard re-mount but to no avail. Is it possible to blow away the information store, then try to restore from backup. Thanks Pete _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery
Here is one error log. However, regarding a good backup I was able to restore the information store files to its orginal location after I blew out the priv1.edb file. But still had problems mounting the information on the system manager console. Any thoughts? As far I can see right now with SBS2k there is no disaster recovery option when I load the cd it just gives me an option To reinstall or remove. Should I reinstall and then attempt another restore? Or fire up a non-production server load exchange 2000 and restore on that machine then move the mailboxes? Thanks in Advanced. Pete Using restore environment Restore log file: c:\temp\ Restore Path: c:\temp\ Annotation: Microsoft Information Store Server: DLITE2000 Backup Instance: First Storage Group Target Instance: First Storage Group Restore Instance System Path: C:\TEMP\First Storage Group Restore Instance Log Path: C:\TEMP\First Storage Group Databases: 2 database(s) Database Name: Mailbox Store (DLITE2000) GUID: BCC39792-F722-4A71-938A4A7174EAB122 Source Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.e db E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.stm Destination Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.e db E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.stm Database Name: Public Folder Store (DLITE2000) GUID: 04608456-5540-476A-53BB476A228D4B52 Source Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.ed b E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.stm Destination Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.ed b E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.stm Log files range: E3D5.log - E3D5.log Last Restore Time: Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 Recover Status: recoverEnded Recover Error: 0xC800023E Recover Time: Mon Jul 01 12:28:03 2002 Restoring Restore to server: DLITE2000 Target Instance: First Storage Group Operation terminated with error -574 (JET_errLogCorruptDuringHardRecovery, corru ption was detected during hard recovery (log was not part of a backup set)) afte r 10.62 seconds. E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\BIN -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery Yes. How do you know you have a good backup? Is this an offline or online backup restore? What are the error messages? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery We have a good back of our mailboxes/information store using veritas 8.6. However, when trying to do a restore it fails to mount the store, however when I try to do it on the console it will not allow me to. I've read the ms knowledge base regarding doing a hard re-mount but to no avail. Is it possible to blow away the information store, then try to restore from backup. Thanks Pete _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery
I would call PSS. It is hard to help via this medium especially with recover issues. Best help is to get the Recovery sheets from MS's site and learn inside out before progressing or call PSS - Original Message - From: Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:41 PM Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery Here is one error log. However, regarding a good backup I was able to restore the information store files to its orginal location after I blew out the priv1.edb file. But still had problems mounting the information on the system manager console. Any thoughts? As far I can see right now with SBS2k there is no disaster recovery option when I load the cd it just gives me an option To reinstall or remove. Should I reinstall and then attempt another restore? Or fire up a non-production server load exchange 2000 and restore on that machine then move the mailboxes? Thanks in Advanced. Pete Using restore environment Restore log file: c:\temp\ Restore Path: c:\temp\ Annotation: Microsoft Information Store Server: DLITE2000 Backup Instance: First Storage Group Target Instance: First Storage Group Restore Instance System Path: C:\TEMP\First Storage Group Restore Instance Log Path: C:\TEMP\First Storage Group Databases: 2 database(s) Database Name: Mailbox Store (DLITE2000) GUID: BCC39792-F722-4A71-938A4A7174EAB122 Source Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.e db E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.stm Destination Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.e db E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.stm Database Name: Public Folder Store (DLITE2000) GUID: 04608456-5540-476A-53BB476A228D4B52 Source Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.ed b E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.stm Destination Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.ed b E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.stm Log files range: E3D5.log - E3D5.log Last Restore Time: Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 Recover Status: recoverEnded Recover Error: 0xC800023E Recover Time: Mon Jul 01 12:28:03 2002 Restoring Restore to server: DLITE2000 Target Instance: First Storage Group Operation terminated with error -574 (JET_errLogCorruptDuringHardRecovery, corru ption was detected during hard recovery (log was not part of a backup set)) afte r 10.62 seconds. E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\BIN -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery Yes. How do you know you have a good backup? Is this an offline or online backup restore? What are the error messages? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery We have a good back of our mailboxes/information store using veritas 8.6. However, when trying to do a restore it fails to mount the store, however when I try to do it on the console it will not allow me to. I've read the ms knowledge base regarding doing a hard re-mount but to no avail. Is it possible to blow away the information store, then try to restore from backup. Thanks Pete _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery
Who is pss never heard of them any contact information? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Holt, Miles Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery Stop what you are going and call PSS NOW! You are in over your head and risk damaging it further. Call PSS and they can walk you through everything you will need to do to safely restore services. --- Miles Holt Network Engineer Summit Marketing Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] 770-303-0426 --- Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock. - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery We have a good back of our mailboxes/information store using veritas 8.6. However, when trying to do a restore it fails to mount the store, however when I try to do it on the console it will not allow me to. I've read the ms knowledge base regarding doing a hard re-mount but to no avail. Is it possible to blow away the information store, then try to restore from backup. Thanks Pete _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery
It is Microsoft's Professional Support Services. Phone number is on their web site. - Original Message - From: Tony Hlabse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:45 PM Subject: Re: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery I would call PSS. It is hard to help via this medium especially with recover issues. Best help is to get the Recovery sheets from MS's site and learn inside out before progressing or call PSS - Original Message - From: Pete [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Exchange Discussions [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:41 PM Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery Here is one error log. However, regarding a good backup I was able to restore the information store files to its orginal location after I blew out the priv1.edb file. But still had problems mounting the information on the system manager console. Any thoughts? As far I can see right now with SBS2k there is no disaster recovery option when I load the cd it just gives me an option To reinstall or remove. Should I reinstall and then attempt another restore? Or fire up a non-production server load exchange 2000 and restore on that machine then move the mailboxes? Thanks in Advanced. Pete Using restore environment Restore log file: c:\temp\ Restore Path: c:\temp\ Annotation: Microsoft Information Store Server: DLITE2000 Backup Instance: First Storage Group Target Instance: First Storage Group Restore Instance System Path: C:\TEMP\First Storage Group Restore Instance Log Path: C:\TEMP\First Storage Group Databases: 2 database(s) Database Name: Mailbox Store (DLITE2000) GUID: BCC39792-F722-4A71-938A4A7174EAB122 Source Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.e db E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.stm Destination Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.e db E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\priv1.stm Database Name: Public Folder Store (DLITE2000) GUID: 04608456-5540-476A-53BB476A228D4B52 Source Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.ed b E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.stm Destination Files: E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.ed b E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\mdbdata\pub1.stm Log files range: E3D5.log - E3D5.log Last Restore Time: Wed Dec 31 16:00:00 1969 Recover Status: recoverEnded Recover Error: 0xC800023E Recover Time: Mon Jul 01 12:28:03 2002 Restoring Restore to server: DLITE2000 Target Instance: First Storage Group Operation terminated with error -574 (JET_errLogCorruptDuringHardRecovery, corru ption was detected during hard recovery (log was not part of a backup set)) afte r 10.62 seconds. E:\Program Files\Exchsrvr\BIN -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Andy David Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:42 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery Yes. How do you know you have a good backup? Is this an offline or online backup restore? What are the error messages? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery We have a good back of our mailboxes/information store using veritas 8.6. However, when trying to do a restore it fails to mount the store, however when I try to do it on the console it will not allow me to. I've read the ms knowledge base regarding doing a hard re-mount but to no avail. Is it possible to blow away the information store, then try to restore from backup. Thanks Pete _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited
RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery
We are using backup exec exchange agent v8.6 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Holt, Miles Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 12:08 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery From your other comments it sounds like you are trying to restore a file backup of a in use Exchange DB. You can't do that. Were you using the exchange agent with Backup Exec? If you did not use the Exchange Agent, you almost certainly DO NOT have a valid usable backup on tape and the likelihood of recovering you server is nonexistent. Here is the PSS contact info from Microsoft's website: Paid Professional Support is available online for this product at $195 U.S. per incident, or by telephone for $245 U.S. per incident billable to your VISA, MasterCard, or American Express credit card. This includes development assistance, external database connectivity issues, or installation and configuration of server extensions on a Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 (or later) Server or Microsoft Internet Information Server. If the cause of the issue is determined to be a bug by Microsoft, the incident will not be charged. Microsoft Support Professionals are responsible for determining the nature of the bug. Professional Support contracts are also available. (800) 936-4900 IT Professionals (800) 936-5800 Developers (888) 456-5570 Partners (Resellers and Consultants) (888) 677-9444 Microsoft Certified Partners (800) 936-2197 Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) (888) 456-5570 System Builders Professional Support is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, including holidays. TTY users, please call (800) 892-5234. --- Miles Holt Network Engineer Summit Marketing Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] 770-303-0426 --- Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock. - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune -Original Message- From: Pete [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 1:00 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery Who is pss never heard of them any contact information? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Holt, Miles Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 7:40 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery Stop what you are going and call PSS NOW! You are in over your head and risk damaging it further. Call PSS and they can walk you through everything you will need to do to safely restore services. --- Miles Holt Network Engineer Summit Marketing Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] 770-303-0426 --- Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock. - Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: help with Small Biz Server 2000/Exchange 2000 recovery We have a good back of our mailboxes/information store using veritas 8.6. However, when trying to do a restore it fails to mount the store, however when I try to do it on the console it will not allow me to. I've read the ms knowledge base regarding doing a hard re-mount but to no avail. Is it possible to blow away the information store, then try to restore from backup. Thanks Pete _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto
