symantec backupex 12 seems to indicate that a number of our users have corrupt mailboxes. This seems to me to be a symantec problem rather than a corrupt mailbox problem. How can I very that it is in fact symantec and not corrupt exchange 2003 mailboxes?
Mark wrote: > symantec backupex 12 seems to indicate that a number of our users have > corrupt mailboxes. This seems to me to be a symantec problem rather > than a corrupt mailbox problem. How can I very that it is in fact > symantec and not corrupt exchange 2003 mailboxes? You're correct; this is most likely to be a BE issue. Don't do brick level backups - just do the online stores. You don't need brick-level.
If however I did have corruption in some of my users mailboxes where would that show up? "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" wrote in message news:e0SpjuEtIHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Mark wrote: >> symantec backupex 12 seems to indicate that a number of our users have >> corrupt mailboxes. This seems to me to be a symantec problem rather >> than a corrupt mailbox problem. How can I very that it is in fact >> symantec and not corrupt exchange 2003 mailboxes? > > You're correct; this is most likely to be a BE issue. > Don't do brick level backups - just do the online stores. You don't need > brick-level. > >
Mark wrote: > If however I did have corruption in some of my users mailboxes where > would that show up? In Outlook, most likely. FWIW, any "mailbox corrupt" messages I have ever seen when using any brick-level backup software have *always* been due to the software, and not Exchange. NB:You can do an online backup of the store in BE12 and still restore individual mailboxes/items, I believe. Check with Symantec on that one. > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" > wrote in > message news:e0SpjuEtIHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Mark wrote: >>> symantec backupex 12 seems to indicate that a number of our users >>> have corrupt mailboxes. This seems to me to be a symantec problem >>> rather than a corrupt mailbox problem. How can I very that it is >>> in fact symantec and not corrupt exchange 2003 mailboxes? >> >> You're correct; this is most likely to be a BE issue. >> Don't do brick level backups - just do the online stores. You don't >> need brick-level.
Mark, I'd recommend calling Symantec. The new version is different from older versions and the 'brick level' (I believe it's now called Granular Backup) works WAY better than before. t "Mark" wrote in message news:BCB0A467-3585-44C6-A3E9-43155BFF5984@microsoft.com... > If however I did have corruption in some of my users mailboxes where would > that show up? > > "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" > wrote in > message news:e0SpjuEtIHA.576@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Mark wrote: >>> symantec backupex 12 seems to indicate that a number of our users have >>> corrupt mailboxes. This seems to me to be a symantec problem rather >>> than a corrupt mailbox problem. How can I very that it is in fact >>> symantec and not corrupt exchange 2003 mailboxes? >> >> You're correct; this is most likely to be a BE issue. >> Don't do brick level backups - just do the online stores. You don't need >> brick-level. >> >>
