>
> Nothing like seeing a IBMer blame Microsoft....
>
> Im sorry only an observation....
> ADSML
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Del Hoobler <hoobler AT US.IBM DOT COM>
> To: <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 1999 8:59 PM
> Subject: Re: ADSM and Exchange
>
>
> > Arni,
> >
> > This is a limitation when doing online Exchange backups
> > through Microsoft's backup/restore API. Microsoft does
> > know that their customers still want some relief here.
> >
> > They acknowledged it at the Microsoft Exchange Conference
> > in Atlanta but still firmly hold their ground that online
> > "database level" backup and restores are the fastest
> > and preserve the single-instance store architecture.
> >
> > With Exchange 5.5 they did alleviate some of the problems
> > by offering a "Deleted Item" recovery function.
> > That still isn't quite enough. So...
> >
> > When Exchange 2000 comes along, they are taking a few
> > more steps. That is, they will have a "Deleted Mailbox"
> > recovery function.  They also will allow you to
> > split the Information Store into multiple "Storage Groups"
> > and have multiple databases within a "Storage Group".
> > The granularity for backup and restore will be at the
> > database level.  This should help a great deal.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Del
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Del Hoobler
> > IBM Corporation
> > hoobler AT us.ibm DOT com
> >
> > > Hi there
> > >
> > > I couldn't help notice'ing that you have a quite big Exchange
database,
> we
> > > are currently moving our Exchange backups to ADSM backup, and we keep
> > > wondering if one really has to restore the whole database to recover
one
> > > mailbox, or even one item.  I know this is a limitation in Exchange,
but
> > > isn't there a way around it?  For example, some dopehead delete's his
> > > mailbox, would you restore 100GB of data?
> > >
> > >
> > > best regards
> > > Arni Snorri Eggertsson
> > > Iceland Telecom
>