[windows2000] Re: Alternative to Symantec Backup exec
- From: "James Lilly" <LillyJ@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <london31uk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:00:20 -0400
I'm not sure about the earlier versions of BackupExec, back then, I was
using it with Exchange 5.5, and I never ran into the same issue.
(Shoot, back then, I was just happy if I could keep the server online,
unhacked, and virus-free during the workday. Backups....shoot, they
were probably hosed too.) :)
You can see how BackupExec handles the backup of individual mailboxes
if you turn on diagnostic logging on the Exchange Agent. You will
actually see that BackupExec uses Impersonation to pretend to be the
mailbox owner. It has to do this because of the fact that Exchange only
allows the mailbox owner full mailbox access. So, if the account
doesn't exist or is disabed.......... no luck. You cannot impersonate
a disabled account, or an account that doesn't exist.
If BE didn't work this way, you would have to grant Full Mailbox Access
to the BE Service Account for each and every mailbox you wanted to
backup. Granted, the current behavior is not my favorite, but I think
it is better than this alternative.
I'm not sure about BE7.0, but I found a TID at symantec/veritas web
site that referenced 8.5/8.6, so this behavior has been around a while.
I found all this out because a long, long time ago (say, in the year
2000) I was bitten by the fact that BE cannot do mailbox backups of
Exchange recipients not displayed in the address list, for similar
reasons. (If the account wasn't in the address list, BE couldn't read
the account properties to find out who to impersonate.) :(
I am also wondering, were you using Exchange 5.5 with Version 7.0 on
NT? If so, IIRC, the reason you didn't have the problem there is that
Exchange 5.5 allows Administrators Full Mailbox Access. MS, for
security reasons, changed that behavior with Exchange 2000 to not allow
Admins Full Mailbox Access to everyone's mailboxes.
Does that help?
James
>>> london31uk@xxxxxxxxx 10/18/2005 9:36 AM >>>
Thanks a lot James. But was this the case with earlier versions of
Backup exec? Cos I can not remember having this issue with Ver7 on say
NT4.0.
Surely you should be able to backup disabled users mailbox, cos I know
you can still get access to a disabled users mailbox from outlook. Why
does this principle not apply in this case?
Maybe I am missing something
Dave
James Lilly <LillyJ@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is not a problem with Symantec/Veritas per se, it is a problem with
the way that BackupExec and other backup software handle mailbox and
mail item backups.
If you look at the way your backup is structured, you are probably
doing your Storage Group backups, then having BackupExec back up all
the
mailboxes as well.
The way backup software backs up individual mailboxes is that it
connects to the mailbox just like a client would. Therefore, when you
disable an account, nobody, INCLUDING the backup software, can access
the mailbox.
The same problem happens if you delete a user, because the mailbox
hangs around for the deleted mailbox retention period with no account
available to access it.
I don't know that there is any way to get around the problem other
than
removing the users from the backup selection, in your case. If it was
a
deleted user, you could purge the mailbox, but then you lose the
ability
to reconnect the mailbox.
Sorry I don't have a better answer, it's just the price we pay for
having a better backup than just the information store/storage group
backups. :(
However, if anyone else out there has a better answer, I'd love to
hear
it. :)
James
>>> london31uk@xxxxxxxxx 10/18/2005 5:07 AM >>>
Hi Guys,
We have been having all sorts of problems with our backup, some
attributed to the above software, and others to Bad Tapes as I
suspect.
The main problem we see with Backup exec V10, is that if you disable a
users account, Backup exec finds it difficult to backup that users
mailbox. I suspect that was not the case with earlier versions, say
from
V8.6.
Backup exec throuws up all these untidy errors, that my boss is
begining to think the whole software is not worth it. I have worked
with
the product for over 6yrs and I know contrary.
Has anyone experienced this problem before and how did you get around
it, short of taking out disbaled users from the backup selection.
Thanks
Dave
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
*****************************
New Site from The Kenzig Group!
Windows Vista Links, list options
and info are available at:
http://www.VistaPop.com
*****************************
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.
http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
*****************************
New Site from The Kenzig Group!
Windows Vista Links, list options
and info are available at:
http://www.VistaPop.com
*****************************
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.
http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm
Other related posts:
