In addition an archiving solution may be in order. Three DAG boxes give redundancy but not so much for the long term message recovery.
M From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 2:17 AM To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 DAG and backup options/recommendations. Point taken. It's actually something I had never considered - using the Dumpster (SIR in 2010 I guess?) and deleted mailbox retention as a "backup" solution. With the database copies you're also protected against storage failures. Hmmm. Many things to consider. That said, we actually had someone the other day who purged his dumpster as he thought it was counting toward his quota! Richard From: bounce-9036128-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9036128-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: 29 July 2010 10:00 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 DAG and backup options/recommendations. But that's the point of single item recovery. For example, if you keep backups for 90 days you can set single item recovery on all mailboxes to 90 days; the data is still in Exchange and can be recovered. It just means there's a larger mailbox for each user but this isn't a problem with the Exchange 2010 architecture. From: Sobey, Richard A [mailto:r.so...@imperial.ac.uk] Sent: 29 July 2010 09:49 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 DAG and backup options/recommendations. That would be my biggest concern: the absence of a backup to restore someone's mailbox from two to three months ago. There's backup for disaster recovery, then there's backup for user stupidity. From: bounce-9036114-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com [mailto:bounce-9036114-8066...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com] On Behalf Of Neil Hobson Sent: 29 July 2010 09:44 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: RE: Exchange 2010 DAG and backup options/recommendations. In addition to what has already been said, let's talk a little about your statement "a backup system isn't really required". What you're referring to there is Exchange native data protection and if you go down this route there are some very clear things that you need to consider. For example, the MS recommendation is that you have at least 3 database copies if you implement native data protection; you've said 2 copies per database in your statement. I don't know your environment, and I know it's extremely unlikely to happen, but could your 2 on-site buildings be taken out at the same time? Consider a 3rd copy somewhere completely remote. You say you're worried about database corruption - that's where lagged database copies come in, so you'd need to consider those (which will take your design to 3 database copies anyway). Also, what are you planning to do regarding single item recovery? That affects the users and your ability to restore in the absence of a backup. From: Pfefferkorn, Pete (pfeffepe) [mailto:pfeff...@ucmail.uc.edu] Sent: 28 July 2010 21:02 To: MS-Exchange Admin Issues Subject: Exchange 2010 DAG and backup options/recommendations. We are going to be moving to Exchange 2010. Basically we will have 14,000 users and will allow users to go up to 4 gig mailboxes. We will have 4 backends distributed between 2 on-site buildings for redundancy (power/network). We will also be deploying a DAG configuration with 2 copies per database. We are talking a ton of storage and the question keeps arising about backups. I've heard with the DAG deployment, a backup system isn't really required because of the database replication, but my mind keeps going back to the possibility of database corruption. Total data to be backed up could be 192 terabytes, so it's a large amount of data. I was wondering what other large shops are using for that type of data. Comments on backup strategies for 2010? Pete Pfefferkorn University of Cincinnati Email Services-Systems Engineer pete.pfefferk...@uc.edu (513)556-9076
