Video Screencast Help
Symantec to Separate Into Two Focused, Industry-Leading Technology Companies. Learn more.
Archiving and eDiscovery Community Blog
Showing posts in English
Rob.Wilcox | 24 May 2014 | 0 comments

We all know about the Enterprise Vault Custom Filtering options available within the product.  There is often a reported performance drop in archiving when these are used, and, of course, the way to build and test these particular filters is not very intuitive or user friendly.

So what other options are there?

Well in Exchange 2007 and higher you can use Journal Rules to enable journaling for particular users, groups, or whether the mail is internal or external. No filtering is needed in Enterprise Vault.  Let's see how:

Journal Rules - Overview

The idea of journal rules is that they allow you to configure how Exchange determines with a journal report should be sent to a journal mailbox.

Specific Rule - Example

Let's see we want to journal just one user.  This example is with Exchange 2010. Exchange 2007 and Exchange 2010 allow rules to be created in the same way, whereas Exchange 2013 is a little...

Rob.Wilcox | 21 May 2014 | 0 comments

Whilst the documentation and guides provided with Enterprise Vault are pretty extensive, sometimes people 'jump' in. They get a little stuck with missing system prerequisites and sometimes take quite a while in deploying their first server. In recent versions of Enterprise Vault there is a cool new way to go.

I was alerted to this by a former colleague (you know who you are!)

In recent (ie 10.0.3 and later) there is a 'DVD Launcher'. If it doesn't launch when you put in the DVD or otherwise mount the media you can manually launch it by running setup.exe on the route of the DVD/folder. When you run it you get this:


If you click on 'Enterprise Vault' over on the left, and highlighted below ...


You can then run a '...

Rob.Wilcox | 21 May 2014 | 3 comments

We all know just how difficult it is when it comes to testing seemingly countless configurations of servers with patches, and other components which are installed. Testing of a new release, like Enterprise Vault 11 is no different really. Sometimes though there is an oddity which is thrown up which defies rhyme and reason.

Take a look at this technote, titled: Enterprise Vault search: the preview pane contains "No preview of this item is available (Error Code: 0x8007007F)'

In this technote Symantec point out an issue with the combination of Enterprise Vault 11, and the SQL Reporting Services being installed on the same server, where the Enterprise Vault Reporting Configuration has never been run. I can tell you from experience that when you read it you think "Surely that should have been tested", but in reality these sort of things are amazingly difficult to test for. You'd end up with hundreds of test environments...

Rob.Wilcox | 17 May 2014 | 0 comments

Finally, after a long wait, Enterprise Vault has caught up with some of the third party products which deal with PST migration. At least, it has in some ways. I'm talking about password removal from PST files. This is now an option on the site settings:


With this setting enabled (it's not by default) any PST files which Enterprise Vault attempts to migrate which are password protected will have the password stripped first of all.

And in the world of DTRACE when you hit a password protected file you'll see something like this:



Rob.Wilcox | 13 May 2014 | 2 comments

I spotted something interesting the other day with Enterprise Vault 10.0.x indexing.  There is an option on the Enterprise Vault Site Settings to exclude particular words/phrases from being indexed at all.

This is useful for companies that have standard disclaimers or other phrases/paragraphs that shouldn't be indexed (because they would simply cause too much noise when doing searches).  To make changes to the indexing exclusions go to the Site Settings, and then the Indexing tab:


Click on 'Exclusions' as highlighted above, and here you can do the exclusion 'maintenance':


You can setup multiple exclusions too, but it's based on the plain text that you want to be excluded.  Still, this seems like a...

Rob.Wilcox | 12 May 2014 | 0 comments

If you're planning on deploying or upgrading to Enterprise Vault 11 then there is a whole lot of stuff that you have to learn about.  There is a ton of information in the user manuals, but it is always good to hear the information first hand, and to ask questions. One way that you can do that is to take part in a session being run jointly with Symantec and Adept-tec.

Aziz K | 09 May 2014 | 0 comments

I just ran into an issue on CA Journal Connector Install.  Even though in the installation screen, set up asks you to enter SQL server name in format, do not enter the server name in th FQDN format, instead provide the instance name => Mysql\myinstance



Rob.Wilcox | 08 May 2014 | 9 comments

I was wondering the other day how we can look at the number of archived items in a vault store, by year. Knowing this sort of information will help with various things relating to migration. For example it will help show how much 'old' data there is in the Vault Store that might have been added to Enterprise Vault by some archiac version.

I came up with this little bit of SQL which does the job nicely:

SELECT Year(iddatetime) as "Year",
       Count(itemsize)      "No. Archived Items", 
       Sum(itemsize) / 1024 "Total Size (MB)" 
FROM   saveset
group by Year(IdDateTime)
order by YEAR(iddatetime) desc

And the output looks like this:

Screen Shot 2014-05-08 at 17.58.26.png

Rob.Wilcox | 07 May 2014 | 0 comments

It might come as a bit of a shock to some people to see a title 'End of life for Enterprise Vault 10', but it seems it is mostly standard practice now that when Symantec release a new version of the product, they announce when the end of life will be for the previous version.

Don't worry though you won't need to rush out tomorrow and upgrade, there is plenty of time.

Take a look at the article from Symantec.

jwong007 | 29 Apr 2014 | 0 comments

On April 7th a significant vulnerability was reported with OpenSSL. This vulnerability has been referred to as "Heartbleed" / CVE-2014-0160 (more details here -- ).

Symantec Enterprise has reviewed this vulnerability thoroughly.  In the final analysis, our infrastructure is not susceptible to the "Heartbleed" bug in the outdated OpenSSL library due to the following reasons:

  1. Our web servers do not use OpenSSL to provide services to customers.
  2. Our hardware and software suppliers confirmed the platforms and versions used to deliver our services are not vulnerable.
  3. We manually tested each customer web portal to confirm our systems are not vulnerable to this bug

No changes will need to be made to security certificates because our systems were never operating with the OpenSSL library.  Additionally, we do not need to re-exchange SSL...