Who would do that with there offsite incremental copies?  Could get tape
excessive.
Matt 

-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf Of
Del Hoobler
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2004 2:25 PM
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Subject: Re: Optimizing Exchange backup/recover?

Matt,

A few things to keep in mind:

* Exchange restore will almost always be slower than backup
  because you are writing to disk and more importantly you are
  replaying transaction logs.

* If you back up to tape and you run COLLOCATION by filespace,
  it will keep the data for your separate storage group
  on different tapes for the exact purpose of running
  parallel restores.

Thanks,

Del

----------------------------------------------------

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 09/09/2004
02:03:40 PM:

> It is going to tape.  I would rather it go to disk but some of the 
> files are huge and my disk pool is usually nearly full when it starts.

> I know it is being slowed down by conflicting with disk to tape 
> migration, to some extent.  The network interface is GB Ethernet and 
> has a lot more capacity availably at that time.
>         If I am successful at backing up separate groups, will I be
able
> to restore it just as fast?   Ot is this something that I would be
able
> to do if I work out what tapes are written to and what filespaces are 
> on them.
> Matt