Hi all

Can anyone shed any light please?
We have upgraded from version 9 to version 11d of Veritas (now Symantec)
Backup Exec.
For some reason, since the upgrade, the job monitor is reporting hundreds of
emails as "corrupt" and simply stating "This file cannot verify".
As a result, accessing job information is painfully slow and the true issues
are masked by these great long reports.
Operating system is Windows Server 2003
Exchange 2003 - Exchange being on a different server to the one in which the
backup drive is located.

Suggestions anyone please?

TIA

Phil

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

I see you haven't gotten any replies to your post.  You may get a better res
ponse from the Backup Exec forum on backupcentral.com:

http://www.backupcentral.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=8

You'll need to register for a Backup Central user id, but that's free. Then 
you can post your question via the forum, or register for and post your ques
tion via the Backup Exec mailing list. (All messages posted in the forum are
 sent to the mailing list,
and vice versa.)

It's a relatively new forum and mailing list, but we do have a number of peo
ple that are using Backup Exec checking it on a regular basis.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by cpreston@glasshouse.com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse@backupcentral.com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

TheScullster wrote:
> Hi all
>
> Can anyone shed any light please?
> We have upgraded from version 9 to version 11d of Veritas (now Symantec)
> Backup Exec.
> For some reason, since the upgrade, the job monitor is reporting hundreds 
of
> emails as "corrupt" and simply stating "This file cannot verify".
> As a result, accessing job information is painfully slow and the true issu
es
> are masked by these great long reports.
> Operating system is Windows Server 2003
> Exchange 2003 - Exchange being on a different server to the one in which t
he
> backup drive is located.
>
> Suggestions anyone please?
>
> TIA
>
> Phil
>
>
This is one of the problems we are having too, in addition the fact that
the granular restore technology plain doesn't work anything like as well
as it should- we've been advised to revert to the legacy mailbox backup,
which leaves us with buckets of corrupt file messages.

I'm sorry to say this, but you may well regret the day you upgraded from
BE9 to BE11d. I know I do. 9 was at least *sometimes* reliable.

If I do find a solution I will post it here.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Chris Bartram" wrote

> This is one of the problems we are having too, in addition the fact that
> the granular restore technology plain doesn't work anything like as well
> as it should- we've been advised to revert to the legacy mailbox backup,
> which leaves us with buckets of corrupt file messages.
>
> I'm sorry to say this, but you may well regret the day you upgraded from
> BE9 to BE11d. I know I do. 9 was at least *sometimes* reliable.
>
Thanks Chris, but AIUI our hands were tied as we have increased the size of
our backup device and 11d is needed to support this.

Phil

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Chris Bartram" wrote

> I'm sorry to say this, but you may well regret the day you upgraded from
> BE9 to BE11d. I know I do. 9 was at least *sometimes* reliable.
>
> If I do find a solution I will post it here.

Chris

Another quick question if I may:

Have you tried restoring email messages that are labelled as corrupt by BE?
If so, do they come back OK?

Phil

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

TheScullster wrote:
> "Chris Bartram" wrote
> 
> Thanks Chris, but AIUI our hands were tied as we have increased the size o
f
> our backup device and 11d is needed to support this.
>
> Phil
>
>
I understood :-). We were forced into upgrade too. It's just such a PITA.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

TheScullster wrote:
> "Chris Bartram" wrote
> 
>
> Chris
>
> Another quick question if I may:
>
> Have you tried restoring email messages that are labelled as corrupt by BE
?
> If so, do they come back OK?
>
> Phil
>
>
No, not tried it.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]