Video Screencast Help
Search Video Help Close Back
to help
New in the Rewards Catalog: Vouchers for "Symantec Technical Specialist" and "Symantec Certified Specialist" exams.

Backup & Archiving Community Blog

Showing posts tagged with Compatibility remove filter
jprknight | 17 Jul 2009 | 1 comment

Within our organisation we are solely concerned with email archiving. We have six Exchange 2000 active/passive clusters, with a dedicated EV server attached to each split equally across two data centres.

Before our virtualisation adventure took place we were running our EV email archiving servers on end of life hardware (End of life when the project implemented EV), which with ever increasing frequency of hardware failures took place. Typically mirrored disks would go down, raid card battery failures, RSA cards not functioning, the list goes on. It was just one big headache; and that was only the hardware.

For the software we were running on 2007 7.5 SP1, which seemed to give us no end of users complaining about their emails not completely archiving and their mailboxes not decreasing in size. We were also running on Windows 2003 SP1; which Symantec had advised us several times has serious shortcomings with MSMQs. Essentially the outgoing queues did not get processed...

GFK | 12 Jun 2009 | 6 comments

Protecting the VMware environment has its own unique set of data protection challenges. There are basically three ways to protect VMware: the guest OS method, the console backup method and the VMware Consolidated Backup (VCB) method. The guest OS method treats each virtual machine as a standalone server and backups take place as usual as if the virtual is physical server. The second practice is the console backup practice, in which virtualisation administrators back up the VMware ESX Server with no regard of the underlying virtual machines in the ESX environment. (There is a “free” product, ESXi, but it has no console, and requires add-ons to manage.)

VCB Backup requires VMware Infrastructure 3 (VI3) and initially SAN attached disk (iSCSI or Fibre Chanel) but now supports VMFS with local, JBOD, iSCSI and Fibre-Channel-attached disk, network file system (NFS) and virtual compatibility mode raw device mapping (RDM). The only mode not currently supported is physical...

GFK | 24 Apr 2009 | 0 comments

It used to be good enough to have your Monday tape and your Tuesday tape and what you did was … hmm, not working so well in today’s media rich business environment. VPN has meant I can work through my business network anywhere in the world - and WiFi more or less anywhere cable free and create stuff that isn’t necessarily in the right place to be backed up onto my Monday tape, or Tuesday tape. The only place I may struggle to work is on an aeroplane (which may also be a barrier that’s coming down) … and yet I’m writing this at 37,000 feet somewhere North-West of Munich.

Given that the messaging infrastructure and business file and print servers still seems to be separated by the red sea, a PDA to give me email may be good enough. Where a few years back more of our important business information resided centrally and less on laptops or desktops, or at remote offices, this now means that the chances are you are likely to be still totally...

alazanowski | 21 Apr 2009 | 2 comments

First of all, I want to state that I am very impressed with the fact that Symantec is moving forward on a product that deduplicates data on either the media or client side depending on configuration. This is one of those demands that will assist all backup administrators and I.T. Departments with minimizing costs in a growing environment with miniscule backup windows. Concepts like this show the ingenuity of the developers and the technical users to perform feats against growing costs.

However, there are a few dissapointments that I have seen with Puredisk & Netbackup:

1. If you bought into the whole VTL libraries before any disk based backups were brought into play, you're screwed if you think you can move Puredisk into that environment to use. Unfortunately, you would have to break the entire VTL system (destroy its OS and applications), wipe out all the data, and set up a linux based system that would host those drives as additional disk paths....

GertjanA | 11 Mar 2009 | 3 comments

Hello fellow EV-admins, users, supporters,

My name is Gertjan. I am Dutch. (it ain't much if it ain't dutch!)

I am working for a contracting firm called T2. I've been placed at one of the largest EV implementations in the Netherlands. Due to the nature of the environment (as pointed out by someone..) I will not post too much about it.

It is big. Over 95000 mailboxes, over 75000 active archives

Besides managing Enterprise Vault, I also manage a little the Exchange environment.

Current version is EV2007SP2, planning to go to 8.0SP2 (august?)

I cannot promise to post regularly, but will try to do so.

I'm getting used to the new forum-layout, but this Blog is definitely an addition to it.

I'm an MCSE+Messaging2003, MCTS, Symantec Certified Specialist EV2007 for Exchange Administrator (yep, proud of it.)

 oh, forgot... Running the EV-servers as VM's... The index and storagedisks are SAN based. (EVA)

...