[ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003
- From: "Rick Boza" <rickb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:23:51 -0400
Restores like this are exactly what the restore SG are for.
An offline server, though, let's you validate recovery scenarios that
might be tough to do otherwise. And you're right, it requires a
completely separate forest and AD structure to test. You can manually
recreate the forest but using an LDIF file for import is usually a
better solution. At the end of the day you'll typically be reattaching
mailboxes to the user objects.
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of MAHADEVAN
Subramanyan
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 10:55 PM
To: exchangelist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ExchangeList] Re: Restoring mailboxes in Exchange 2000/2003
Hi George/Rick,
Yep... I agree with you George, users are like that and even i have
faced that situation many times.
But the one which is given there in the Method 3 is almost like
restoring the exchange database in an exchange server in different
forest.
As Exchange 2000/2003 is very much dependent on Active Directory, how is
it possible to restore a database in an exchange server in different
Active Directory forest? Then what is the purpose of having the Recovery
Storage Group?
Suppose assume that if you have a single domain controller and an
Exchange 2003 server. If your domain controller is dead and if you do
not have any back up for the domain controller but you have a backup for
your Exchange server, will it be possible to install a separate domain
controller and an Exchange server in that new domain and then restore
the database of the old Exchange server in the newly installed Exchange
server? That is what I understand from the site which I have mentioned.
Correct me if I am wrong...
Regards, Maha
MCSE: Messaging
IT Infrastructure Engineer.
________________________________
From: exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:exchangelist-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Taylor, George
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:29 PM
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.
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.
Other related posts:
