individual mailbox restore - Veritas Backup Exec

This is a discussion on individual mailbox restore - Veritas Backup Exec ; Is it worth it to backup individual mailboxes if I still need to build another server and restore the IS? Am I missing something? Kim...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: individual mailbox restore

  1. individual mailbox restore

    Is it worth it to backup individual mailboxes if I still need to build
    another server and restore the IS? Am I missing something?

    Kim



  2. Re: individual mailbox restore


    Kim

    Just imagine one of your users or worse, your boss, deletes an important
    mail and need it back.
    Do you prefer to restore the whole IS or just his mailbox?

    Tilo


    "Kim Johnson" wrote:
    >Is it worth it to backup individual mailboxes if I still need to build
    >another server and restore the IS? Am I missing something?
    >
    >Kim
    >
    >



  3. Re: individual mailbox restore

    It depends on how many mailboxes there are, and how large your IS is, and
    what your backup window looks like.

    If your IS takes 1 hour, all the mailboxes will take 20 hours. You may have
    to be very selective about who gets to have thier individual mailbox backed
    up.

    To restore a mailbox, you can redirect the files so they populate a space
    (or recovery mailbox) other than the original mailbox. I like to do it that
    way because you cannot recover individual files, but you can get a whole
    folder from the mailbox. By placing that folder into a recovery mailbox, you
    as the administrator can send the requested attachment or messaegs back to
    the recipient. If you were to restore the whole folder, you will overwrite
    existing files, and you may restore unwanted data at the same time.

    HTH,
    Todd MCSE, Compaq ASE

    "Kim Johnson" wrote in message
    news:394fff17@hronntp01....
    > Is it worth it to backup individual mailboxes if I still need to build
    > another server and restore the IS? Am I missing something?
    >
    > Kim
    >
    >




+ Reply to Thread