.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!!

Find more posts tagged with

Free for TechExams community: Cybersecurity salary guide

Compare cert salaries and plan your next career move

Button

Comments

Claymoore

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

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

Same for Acronis - no problem there ..

Lee H

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

Lee H wrote: »

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.

Lee H

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

dynamik

Personal folder files are unsupported over a LAN or over a WAN link
http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/01/21/network-stored-pst-files-don-t-do-it.aspx

Claymoore

Lee H wrote: »

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

dynamik wrote: »

Personal folder files are unsupported over a LAN or over a WAN link
Ask the Performance Team : Network Stored PST files ... don't do it!

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.

Lee H

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

Lee H wrote: »

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.

Lee H

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