ContributionsMost RecentMost LikesSolutionsRe: Verify on D2D2T ?Thank you for answering, but I am not sure if you understood what I mean. When the disk-to-tape job starts, it will by default read the files created under the disk-to-disk job. If it can read the file, this would most likely be the same as running a verify job resulting in "OK". If it can not read the file, this would most likely be the same as running a verify job resulting in corrupt file / file unreadable. Then, running verify on disk-to-disk would be excessive. Or, have I completely misunderstod the functionality of Verify ? Verify on D2D2T ?Hello.. Running multiple disk-to-disk-to-tape jobs and it is always working perfectly. But, are "Verify"-operations really necessary on the disk-to-disk part ? If a file gets corrupt, then the disk-to-tape part would detect this and generate an error in the log ? Can someone please give me some inputs on this matter ? Re: Product comparison: when to use Backup Exec instead of Netbackup ? Thank you for the link.... However, one question/comment remains: define small, medium and big business If I have one media server managing 40-50 backupservers, would this be considered "small" business ? And are Backup Exec able to handle this ? Product comparison: when to use Backup Exec instead of Netbackup ? Hello... Can someone please tell me the practical/technical differences (not marketing BS) between Backup Exec and NetBackup (or at least point to a web page or link with this information?) ? Is it depending on the number of source servers ? Or are those 2 completely different non-comparable products ? Is there some rule saying "above X servers, use NetBackup instead...." ? Are there any limitsin Backup Exec regarding how many servers it can manage ? LillF Re: Problem when backing up Microsoft Exchange 2003 Any ideas ?? I really need some help... Btw, it feels so nicehaving asupport agreement, when the standard answer from Symantec Support is: "Please remove and re-install" In the real world, re-installing whenever a problem is discovered is almost never an option. However, this seems to be a trademark for Symantec. :smileymad: Problem when backing up Microsoft Exchange 2003 Hello... I am currently using BE 11.0 Revision 7170 with the following installed updates: SP1, HF 18, 19, 20, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 26 and 25. I want to make a daily full backup of 2 Exchange 2003-servers and be able to restore individual mailboxes. However, the following tests have been performed: 1. If I run a backup job using the options "Full - Database & Logs (flush committed logs)" I am able to backup the Information Store without problemswith pretty good speed.I am unable to restore individual mailboxes. 2. If I runa backup job using the options "Full - Databse & Logs (flush committed logs)" and "Enable the restore of individual mail messages and folders from Information Store backup", it will only read 1,174,592 or 1,351,432 bytes (out of 12 or 20 GB, depending on source server). After that, the job will just sit there and do absolutely nothing until I choose to cancel it (waited for 26 hours). This will also generate event ids 215 and 222 on the source-server. 3. If I under Tools / Options / Microsoft Exchange choose "Enable legacy mailbox support (not recommended - use information store instead)", then I am able to backup and restore individual mailboxes. I am still not able to backup the whole Information Store. Someone needs to explain for me: - the correct way to make backup of Exchange while having theability to restore individual mailboxes ? - what my problem is, is it a account problem or something else ? - also, I have run isinteg.exe on both source-servers, no problems detected. Please help. BIG problems after upgrading to 11D Hello. We are using Backup Exec to backup multiple Windows servers in different domains and network. All backups are directed to one media server. Version used was 10D. No Windows communication allowed, port 10000 - 10100 (opened in firewall, no changes before/after upgrade) used for all server <-> agent communication. Accessing servers through "User-defined Selection". Today we upgraded to Backup Exec 11D Rev 7170 with Service Pack 1, Hotfix 17, Hotfix 18, Hotfix 19, Hotfix 20 and Hotifx 21 (using LiveUpdate). And this was a very very big mistake! Afterthe upgradeit takes minutes when clicking on a server in "User-defined Selection". When starting a backup, it immediately gets "Queue" in Job Status. If I leave it alone, the job will start to run after about 6-7 minutes. Questions: 1) Are there any changes in communication regarding 10D vs 11D ? 2) Are there any other changes which could affect my systems this way ? Write checksums to media... The "Write Checksums to Media" option.... Has that been removed in Backup Exec (10.1 rev 5629) or is it enabled by default ? I would like to get some inputs on how to improve the backup process regarding time used. The scenario is as follows: B2D jobs backup about 100GB of SQL databases froma remoteserver, using SQL Agent and Remote Agent. This takes about 1,5 hours. Compression is used on the B2D device. Then verify begins... And it takes about 8 hours. After this, duplication to tape is supposed to run. However, since verification does not verify backed up data with the source, do I really need to verify the B2D data? If there is a problem with reading the data, wouldn´t that generate errors when trying to duplicate it ? Verification of tape is a completely different thing. Are there any other options for making verify run faster (as in: have I missed any changes in configuration?) ? LillF Recommendations for disk storage Hello.... This post is not about the Backup Exec product itself, but more about hardware requirements/performance. If posted in the wrong forum, please let me know. I would like to receive some comments/recommendations on how to improve performance on my disk systems to which I am running B2D-jobs. What kind of setups are You using ? Today I have 2 RAID-arrays: a) 4 300GB SCSI 10,000 rpm disks in one RAID5-array, one logical disk b) 5 250GB SATA 7,200 rpm disks in one RAID5-array, one logical disk c) both arrays on two different physical adapters (of course). The problem is: EXTREME fragmentation and because of this, write performance is really bad. I am using Diskeeper for defragmentation, but both manual jobs and continously jobs are unable to bring order to the files (that is, within a resonable timeframe before the next B2D-job wreaks havoc to the filesystem). The questions are: 1) Should I instead make a large number of RAID1 (mirror) arrays? RAID1 would have faster write performance than RAID5. I don´t even know if there are any practicallimitations to how many RAID1 one controller can manage. 2) RAID0 would have pretty fast write performance, however, zero redundancy. There must be a resonable "middle-way" between RAID0 and RAID5. 3) How have You setup your diskarrays ? Thanks in advance. LillF Re: Network performance not as expected, and it IS a problem It seems I still have to clarify some things... 1) Using FTP to transfer files files from source-servers to my Backup Exec-server works almost perfectly. It will generate an average throughput of 270 - 275 Mbps... And peaks at 300 Mbps. I am fine with this. 2) Using BE to transfer the exact same files from the exact same source-servers to the exact same Backup Exec-server, under the same conditions, will generate an average 150 Mbps (tests done earlier this day shows the average decreased to about 85 Mbps) and one peak at 280 Mbps. 3) No tapedrivers/autoloaders involved in the test. 4) FTP transfers are directed to the same RAID-devices as when using BE. I have updated nic-drivers on all involved servers. I have double-checked the settings for speed and duplex. The version of BE used is 10.1 Rev 5629. All Remote Agents have been updated. There is only2 differences in this scenariothat I am aware of: a) FTP protocol vs. ndmp b) NTFSvs. Backup Exec´s backup-to-disk device If disk fragmentation is the problem, it would also affectFTP-transfers. Is it possible to configure backup-to-disk devices block and buffer size ? LillF