Discovering Devices - Never Completes!! Help PLS!
Hello Everyone, I have a DLT 8000 drive connected via scsi 2940 running win server 2016 x64 std. Vanilla stand alone server install with base service packs/patches. No other SW is installed. Device manager has no errors. Im using the latest backup exec v25. In the Storage Tab of Backup Exec, Discovering devices simply refuses to complete. I've left it running for hours. It just constantly runs marking both tape drive and disk storage as online and offline every five or so minutes. I've tried pausing the devices...discovering devices just cycles marking them offline and then online.. I've tried deleting the tape drive....it is found within a minute and then same discovering devices cycle of marking offline and online. I've tried restarting the server. Same result. Discovering devices just refuses to complete. I've had the same endless discovering device issue with backup exec versions 16, 20 and 21. I've restored the server via image prebackup exec install between each version. I've been messing with this issue for three weeks Please kindly assist!! Thank you to all!
Catalogue Reporting from Backup Exec 12.5
Hello time-travelers, No it's not 2010. No need to adjust your clocks. What's the easiest way to run a discovery report on the Backup Exec 12.5 catalogue please? Are there any native or 3rd party tools that could help the discovery? Looking for simple information about: * Names of clients with valid backup images in the catalogue. * Date ranges of valid backup images in the catalogue. * Any data restores performed in last 2 years. Background: We have a legacy Backup Exec 12.5 platform running on Server 2003 that's been sitting idle for a number of years. The last backup image was created about 2 years ago, so it definitely has valid images. We have finally decided to decommission the old platform, but our Risk team wants to know what data is still being held on backups before they'll sign off on the "early" destruction. Thanks in advance for any advice.
Discovery Accelerator exports.... .msg vs .eml
I'm working with EV 12.5.3 and Discovery Accelerator 12 doing some searches for our legal department. I'm having problems with the resulting PST files that I am exporting from DA. Some of the messages in the resulting PST cannot be opened in the Outlook preview pane. The displayed error is "This file cannot be previewed because there is no previewer installed for it". Upon closer inspection, I'm seeing that all of the messages that can't be viewed in the preview pane are actually in the generic .eml format and NOT in Outlooks native .msg format. After doing some research, I believe this is happening because we switched from Exchange journal mailbox targeted archiving to SMTP archiving last fall. All the more recent messages look to be the ones in .eml format. The problem is that, due to how our legal department is reviewing these search results (NOT in DA unfortunately), having to open every individual message in its own window instead of viewing it in the Outlook preview pane causes a huge increase in the amount of time it takes them to perform their review. Has anyone run into this problem before with .eml formatted messages, and do you have any creative solutions to this problem... something like a different export method, an add-in for outlook that can preview .eml's, maybe using a different mail client to review in? While i'm fairly certain the answer will probably be "Do your reviews in DA", there are other reasons why that is not feasible at the time that I won't get into here. Hoping to get some input from other community members on this problem and see if anyone has any ideas. Thanks everyone! Matt
Expanded Classification for Archived Data with Enterprise Vault 12.2
Enterprise Vault 12.2 will be generally available August 7th 2017. This release adds powerful, extermely accurate classification with default policies, business intelligence, new content sources and expanded records management capabilities.
Migrate from MessageOne to Veritas EV.cloud
I've read quite a few articles about migration from other solutions into EV, including exporting to PST, and importing back into EV, and the use of third-party apps to migrate to EV. Has anyone migrated from MessageOne to EV? We are looking for an idea of how long the process may take us. We have around 400 users, 1.6TB in storage, and total aggregate is 2.3TB. Any info is helpful. Thanks, Jess
Defensible Deletion: The Cornerstone of Intelligent Information Governance
The struggle to stay above the rising tide of information is a constant battle for organizations. Not only are the costs and logistics associated with data storage more troubling than ever, but so are the potential legal consequences. Indeed, the news headlines are constantly filled with horror stories of jury verdicts, court judgments and unreasonable settlements involving organizations that failed to effectively address their data stockpiles. While there are no quick or easy solutions to these problems, an ever increasing method for effectively dealing with these issues is through an organizational strategy referred to as defensible deletion. A defensible deletion strategy could refer to many items. But at its core, defensible deletion is a comprehensive approach that companies implement to reduce the storage costs and legal risks associated with the retention of electronically stored information (ESI). Organizations that have done so have been successful in avoiding court sanctions while at the same time eliminating ESI that has little or no business value. The first step to implementing a defensible deletion strategy is for organizations to ensure that they have a top-down plan for addressing data retention. This typically requires that their information governance principals – legal and IT – are cooperating with each other. These departments must also work jointly with records managers and business units to decide what data must be kept and for what length of time. All such stakeholders in information retention must be engaged and collaborate if the organization is to create a workable defensible deletion strategy. Cooperation between legal and IT naturally leads the organization to establish records retention policies, which carry out the key players’ decisions on data preservation. Such policies should address the particular needs of an organization while balancing them against litigation requirements. Not only will that enable a company to reduce its costs by decreasing data proliferation, it will minimize a company’s litigation risks by allowing it to limit the amount of potentially relevant information available for current and follow-on litigation. In like manner, legal should work with IT to develop a process for how the organization will address document preservation during litigation. This will likely involve the designation of officials who are responsible for issuing a timely and comprehensive litigation hold to custodians and data sources. This will ultimately help an organization avoid the mistakes that often plague document management during litigation. The Role of Technology in Defensible Deletion In the digital age, an essential aspect of a defensible deletion strategy is technology. Indeed, without innovations such as archiving software and automated legal hold acknowledgements, it will be difficult for an organization to achieve its defensible deletion objectives. On the information management side of defensible deletion, archiving software can help enforce organization retention policies and thereby reduce data volume and related storage costs. This can be accomplished with classification tools, which intelligently analyze and tag data content as it is ingested into the archive. By so doing, organizations may retain information that is significant or that otherwise must be kept for business, legal or regulatory purposes – and nothing else. An archiving solution can also reduce costs through efficient data storage. By expiring data in accordance with organization retention policies and by using single instance storage to eliminate ESI duplicates, archiving software frees up space on company servers for the retention of other materials and ultimately leads to decreased storage costs. Moreover, it also lessens litigation risks as it removes data available for future litigation. On the eDiscovery side of defensible deletion, an eDiscovery platform with the latest in legal hold technology is often essential for enabling a workable litigation hold process. Effective platforms enable automated legal hold acknowledgements on various custodians across multiple cases. This allows organizations to confidently place data on hold through a single user action and eliminates concerns that ESI may slip through the proverbial cracks of manual hold practices. Organizations are experiencing every day the costly mistakes of delaying implementation of a defensible deletion program. This trend can be reversed through a common sense defensible deletion strategy which, when powered by effective, enabling technologies, can help organizations decrease the costs and risks associated with the information explosion.Breaking News: Recusal Motion in Da Silva Moore Case Denied
In what might be characterized as the most anticipated ruling in the eDiscovery world over the past several months, the district court in Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe today denied the plaintiffs’ motion to recuse the Honorable Andrew Peck as the assigned magistrate to that action. In rejecting the plaintiffs’ recusal request, United States District Court Judge Andrew Carter held that “Judge Peck’s decision accepting computer-assisted review, reached upon consideration of the applicable law, was not influenced by bias, nor did it create any appearance of bias.” Judge Carter’s decision is particularly significant as it leaves undisturbed Judge Peck’s orders regarding the use of predictive coding and his declaration that computer-assisted review in eDiscovery is “acceptable in appropriate cases.” Moreover, Judge Carter gave another judicial imprimatur to predictive coding with his determination that it “does not inherently favor one party over the other in this case.” With today’s ruling, Judge Carter has perhaps finally brought to a close the contentious sideshow that nearly overshadowed the first known case involving the use of predictive coding in eDiscovery. With its potential to reduce the costs and delays associated with the review of ESI, predictive coding holds incredible promise for the future of eDiscovery.
