[ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003

  • From: "Rick Boza" <rickb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:14:55 -0400

GREAT point - backup verification.  Please don't get me wrong by the
way, the offline restore server is a great asset - but it's just not
always a luxury that everyone can have.

 

Besides, you can test restores with the recovery SG as well - so it's a
bit less useful in this case.  One thing the offline server is EXCELLENT
for however is the capability to develop, test, and validate restore
procedures.

 

From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Taylor, George
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:59 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003

 

Actually we use Method 3 here on a semi-regular basis.  Most of the time
it's a user that has some power and they, for whatever reason, want to
go back a year or more and search for some emails.  Another reason is
going to be litigation, if you have a good archive solution in place
this is a moot point.  But the last litigation we had we didn't have an
archive solution in place, so we restored, search, restored next monthly
and searched again and so forth.

 

The final reason is going to be testing, I don't care about actually
getting data back, I just want a testing environment that is identical
to our production.  It may be for simply testing a patch or practicing a
full blown upgrade, either one I want to be able to easily go back to
our current environment multiple times to test/practice.

 

Just my thoughts,

 

George Taylor

Systems Programmer

Regional Health Inc.

 

 

________________________________

From: Rick Boza [mailto:rickb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:34 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003

So...given that Russ is right - how is it not practical?  I've
implemented Exchange more than a few times, and managing deleted item
retention effectively is always, ALWAYS better than doing a restore.  

 

I'm a bit surprised you'd give such a  response, Raj -from what I've
seen you often have pretty well thought out input.  If that's your only
complaint about it, that seems a bit disingenuous to me. 

 

Anyway, perhaps its personal preference - personally I advocate avoiding
restores whenever possible except in the case of disaster.  Back to the
original topic: what are you asking exactly, and then maybe we can
provide a more meaningful answer.

 

From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Periyasamy, Raj
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:09 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003

 

Yes, you are right

 

 

________________________________

From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Russ Clark
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:55 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003

That is incorrect, you can recover from shift deletes if you have the
dumpsteralwayson registry hack enabled.

 

Russ Clark

________________________________

From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Periyasamy, Raj
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:45 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003

 

I don't think the Ed Crowley Never Restore method is really useful in
practical world. because, 90% of all restore requests are shift deletes.
Shift delete does not send the deleted item to dumpster. Its gone for
good immediately.

 

HTH. 
Regards, 
Raj Periyasamy 
MCSE(Messaging), CCNA 

 

________________________________

From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rick Boza
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:31 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003

I'm not clear on exactly what you are asking - is the question whether
or not his is viable? Absolutely.  Is it optimal?  No, that's why
Microsoft introduced the recovery storage group.  

 

But a better solution is the Ed Crowley Never Restore Method (tm)
While it was originally designed around Exchange 5.5, the principles
remain valid through E2K7.


Rick

 

From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MAHADEVAN
Subramanyan
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 3:31 AM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003

 

Sorry Guys...Am posting this question again...

 

While surfing the net i got this info from one of the Microsoft site
which states that the exchange database can be restored in the different
exchange server with same Org name and Structure in different forest.
Here is the site

 

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823176 (have a glimpse at Method 3)

 

Is it possible to restore an Exchange database from a backup in a
different Exchange recovery server (with same organization name,
administrative group & Storage group name) in a different Forest? 

 

Plz give your suggestions... and also let me know if any one of you have
tried this and got succeeded....

 

 

Regards, Maha

MCSE: Messaging

 

Confidentiality Statement:

This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it
is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which
is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, please note that you are strictly prohibited from
disseminating or distributing this information (other than to the
intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return
email.

Confidentiality Statement:

This message is intended only for the individual or entity to which it
is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential information which
is exempt from disclosure under applicable laws. If you are not the
intended recipient, please note that you are strictly prohibited from
disseminating or distributing this information (other than to the
intended recipient) or copying this information. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return
email.

***Note: The information contained in this message, including any
attachments, may be privileged, confidential, and protected from
disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify the Sender
immediately by a "reply to sender only" message and destroy all
electronic or paper copies of the communication, including any
attachments.

Other related posts: