>>Why would you need to run eseutil against a restored database? Consistency Check. >>>Also note that Outlook clients in cache mode will get a warning about not being able to connect to the Exchange Server when they access the dial-tone store, which they can ignore, but items wont be cached to their ost unless they recreate their outlook profiles or once the production store is swapped back( which requires downtime), and so forth. Yeah, that's the beauty of it. The downtime can be under 5 minutes. Just move the database files around on the server, and remount. Then exmerge back. No profiles have to be rebuilt. >>>2.5? Long time.
Is it? I cannot compare really since this is my first job maintaining an exchange store. My database is 120GB, and I use SATA disks and gigabit networks to restore. ________________________________ From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:14 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Revisit: to RSG or to not RSG 2.5? Long time. Why would you need to run eseutil against a restored database? Also note that Outlook clients in cache mode will get a warning about not being able to connect to the Exchange Server when they access the dial-tone store, which they can ignore, but items wont be cached to their ost unless they recreate their outlook profiles or once the production store is swaped back( which requires downtime), and so forth. I think it's a great option, just not one I prefer over simply restoring from backup. From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:07 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Revisit: to RSG or to not RSG Even I just have 'a' database. It would take 2.5 hours to restore. I would rather get people up and running, not rush through a database restore, have time to do eseutil diag test on it, then merge databases. And in the odd situation where my restore fails, or I have a corrupted database, my users are not flipping me off. Plus, I have always thought the dial-tone method was kinda fun ;) -Sam ________________________________ From: Don Andrews [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:01 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Revisit: to RSG or to not RSG Oh, my bad - you DID say A database - sorry. ________________________________ From: Don Andrews Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:01 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Revisit: to RSG or to not RSG Really? - how many clusters/servers/databases/terabytes? ________________________________ From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 8:21 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Revisit: to RSG or to not RSG I find the dial-tone restores more work than they are worth. I can restore a database and replay logs in less than an hour. From: Sam Cayze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:12 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Revisit: to RSG or to not RSG Thinking back to this thread... Are people still using Dial-Tone Restore Method when recovering Exchange Databases? (Then swap the databases and merge them). I never really revisited it since SP2 came out. I know that they improved the RSG and ExMerge process in SP2 I still practice to Dial-Tone method in my Disaster Recovery Tests, and that's what I would utilize in an emergency. I find it beneficial since my users have cached mode for old data, and they it get's my users up right away sending and receiving. I'm guess I am just surprised no one mentioned it in this thread. http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/Exchange-Dial-tone-Restore-Method-Pa rt1.html ________________________________ From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:31 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG Option 1 is what I would do. Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:26 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG Yeah me too, what do you think about the method? I was thinking one of the following: 1) Restore the database directly to the First Storage Group or 2) Restore to a recovery storage group and use exmerge to bring the data up to date or 3) Restore to a recovery storage group, dismount both stores and copy the recovered files to the live location or But I don't have enough experience to know the pros and cons of each. Bill Songstad Director of Technology & Operations | Washington Credit Union League [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 206.340.4837 | 800.552.0680 ext. 117 | www.waleague.org Washington's Credit Unions. together. better. -----Original Message----- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:20 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG I wouldn't have done it that way, but that should be an ok way. Given what you've said, I'd take a dump of the "crappy hardware" and restore it on the "new hardware". Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 12:12 PM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG It affects everyone. I need to restore the entire Datastore. I had a mainboard failure and restored the server to crappy temporary hardware. Now the new hardware is ready and I want to move the live data to the new hardware. I didn't do it with swing migrations because it took less time to reboot into the crappy hardware than it would have to build a machine to swing to. I prepped the new machine using one half the broken mirror from the original machine. Now I have two clones of the same machine and one has to come off line while I bring the other up. AD should be none the wiser. Then I restore the current database and go on my merry way. Bill Songstad -----Original Message----- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:57 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: to RSG or to not RSG You have to answer first - what is the goal? Why are you doing the restore? Does it impact all users or just one (or a few?). Regards, Michael B. Smith MCSE/Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Bill Songstad (WCUL) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:38 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: to RSG or to not RSG I find myself needing to restore my entire datastore. The question is, is it better to: 1) Restore the database directly to the First Storage Group or 2) Restore to a recovery storage group and use exmerge to bring the data up to date or 3) Restore to a recovery storage group, dismount both stores and copy the recovered files to the live location or 4) Use an entirely different plan of which I'm as yet unaware It is perfectly acceptable to bring the datastore offline. What are the pros and cons of each strategy? My biggest concerns are stability and integrity of the final data, and total time spent by yours truly. I'm running Exchange 2003 SP2 and NtBackup. I'm leaning toward number 1, but that's probably because I'm more familiar with exchange 2000 than X2K3 and that was the only way then. Thanks for any insights, Bill Songstad ~ Ninja Email Security with Cloudmark Spam Engine Gets Image Spam ~ ~ http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Ninja ~
