.pst files and ntbackup
Folks:
I have been reading symantec forums, and they recommend not using backup exec for .pst files, or there is a high possibility of corruption.
Is "ntbackup" safe to use? I cannot find any information for this on ms's site...
thanks...
Cheers!!
I have been reading symantec forums, and they recommend not using backup exec for .pst files, or there is a high possibility of corruption.
Is "ntbackup" safe to use? I cannot find any information for this on ms's site...
thanks...
Cheers!!
Utini!
Comments
-
Claymoore
Member Posts: 1,637
I've backed up PSTs remotely using HP Data Protector without issues so I don't know why any other program would be unable to back them up.
My only question is how the backup program would treat the PST when it is in use. If the user has outlook closed, then it is backed up normally like any other file. If Outlook is open then the file is in use and you would have to rely on VSS or some other open file agent to perform the backup. -
astorrs
Member Posts: 3,139 ■■■■■■□□□□
Symantec is recommending Backup Exec because of its Open File Option (as Claymoore hinted at) so that you can backup the files when they are in use (and because they're in the business of software sales
).
Most commercial backup software has either a VSS agent or proprietary snapshot technology to do the same. -
jibbajabba
Member Posts: 4,317 ■■■■■■■■□□
Same for Acronis - no problem there ..My own knowledge base made public: http://open902.com
-
Lee H
Member Posts: 1,135
are these PST files being backed up from the client or is this a server back up that includes PST files that were talking about
PST files in my opinion should not be held on the local machine, the largest I have seen is 16 gig and I usually advise people to stay well below the 1 gig size and just create more smaller PST files as opose to 1 very large one, this builds in some redundancy should the file become corrupt. -
HeroPsycho
Inactive Imported Users Posts: 1,940
PST files in my opinion should not be held on the local machine, the largest I have seen is 16 gig and I usually advise people to stay well below the 1 gig size and just create more smaller PST files as opose to 1 very large one, this builds in some redundancy should the file become corrupt
PST Files shouldn't be accessed over a network share. That's been unsupported for years and will bring file servers to their knees.Good luck to all! -
Lee H
Member Posts: 1,135
HeroPsycho wrote: »PST Files shouldn't be accessed over a network share. That's been unsupported for years and will bring file servers to their knees.
In my last position we put over 2000 staff "My Documents" folders onto the server including any PST files they had, some had very large ones some had none. If this is not a good idea ide like to know why, maybe its an old school thing when PC links were only 10mb, nowadays its gig backbone and 100mb to each desktop. -
Claymoore
Member Posts: 1,637
In my last position we put over 2000 staff "My Documents" folders onto the server including any PST files they had, some had very large ones some had none. If this is not a good idea ide like to know why, maybe its an old school thing when PC links were only 10mb, nowadays its gig backbone and 100mb to each desktop
Ask the Performance Team : Network Stored PST files ... don't do it!
PST access over a network has been unsupported since Exchange 4.0. This isn't a function of network latency (although that doesn't help) but rather how PSTs work with physical disks.
I have personally seen PSTs crash file servers. Actually, we were having file server problems that I traced back to PST-like symptoms. I ruled that out because only one user was supposed to have any PST files, which were stored locally and backed up remotely using DP. Later I discovered that user told other users what a great idea PSTs were and others decided to use them. Thankfully the client I am at now prevents PSTs from being created through group policy. -
HeroPsycho
Inactive Imported Users Posts: 1,940
Translation: "Dude, where's my kernel memory?"
Probably the most common reason I've seen file servers mysteriously become unresponsive is PST file access over the network.Good luck to all! -
Lee H
Member Posts: 1,135
1. All operations take longer.
2. Write operations can take approximately four times longer than read operations.
3. Outlook has slower performance than the Exchange Client.
Has anyone experianced these problems whena PST has been on the network. -
HeroPsycho
Inactive Imported Users Posts: 1,940
1. All operations take longer.
2. Write operations can take approximately four times longer than read operations.
3. Outlook has slower performance than the Exchange Client.
Has anyone experianced these problems whena PST has been on the network
Absolutely. But you don't have to believe us or Microsoft.
Good luck to all! -
Lee H
Member Posts: 1,135
Absolutely. But you don't have to believe us or Microsoft.
Its not that I dont beleive you, logically I can totally understand what your saying
Translation: "Dude, where's my kernel memory?"
Never seen this error and I have worked in almost a dozen environments were PST's are on the network.
