06-24-2013 12:04 PM
I am attempting to restore a few mailboxes for Exchange 2010 from Backup Exec 2010. The exchange backup is from a year ago and at that time the DAG was named DAG01.company.local. For various reasons we have renamed our production DAG to DAG03.company.local.
When i try to run the restore job, under resource credentials i see the path to DAG01.company.local when testing the credentials. The test fails saying a "communications failure has occured" I am guessing this is because DAG01 no longer exists in our infrastructure.
My question then is how can I restore an exchange backup where the DAG name is no longer the same as the production one?
Solved! Go to Solution.
06-24-2013 01:59 PM
That is correct... When restoring to a RDB you are unable to Granularly restore. Its all or nothing. You can however restore just the selected mailboxes and redirect them to the New DAG name
06-24-2013 12:14 PM
...is this just doing a normal restore, or have you tried a redirected restore?
Thanks!
06-24-2013 12:24 PM
I have tried a redirecting restore to a recoveryDB i created
06-24-2013 12:42 PM
Fishizza,
You said that youre trying to restore a few mailboxes.... If so this may be your issue... When restoring to a Recovery DB you need to restore the database, or attempt the redirected restore and target the new DAG name... I dont believe that you are able to just restore selected mailboxes.
06-24-2013 01:40 PM
Is it that you can't restore individual mailboxes to a recovery DB? We enable GRT on exchange backups for the purpose of just restoring what we need. I was hoping to avoid restoring the whole DB due to its size
06-24-2013 01:59 PM
That is correct... When restoring to a RDB you are unable to Granularly restore. Its all or nothing. You can however restore just the selected mailboxes and redirect them to the New DAG name
06-24-2013 02:17 PM
OK, thanks. I'll give that a try. I like the idea of restoring to a different DB just to avoid doing anything on production but mounting the entire DB for just a couple mailboxes doesn't make a lot of sense.