Prev: SBS 2008 and Exchange 2007
Next: SMTP removed in error from IIS in add and remove programs
From: Jim Behning SBS MVP on 26 May 2010 07:43
Restore to virgin hard drives goes a lot faster than a backup. Often a
restore to new hard drives can take 50% less than the backup. You are
running backups every night already so backup time is not part of the
time equation.

Note of course that you do have to install two new hard drives, build
the new Raid 1 array, and install a base operating system that is on
the same service pack as your old backups. The big point is your
server should be running some sort of raid and preferably some sort of
hardware raid.

On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:06:50 +0100, Neil Rashbrook
<neil(a)parkwaycc.co.uk> wrote:

>Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP] wrote:
>
>> The only Officially Supported way to do this in Server 2003, including
>> SBS 2003 is to backup, remove the old drive, install the new drive,
>> install a base OS, update the OS service pack to whatever was on the
>> box, and restore from backup.
>
>Yes, well given that the (local disk) backup itself takes over 50%
>longer than the clone, this is going to be the last resort option.
See what SBS support is working on
http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/default.aspx
Check your SBS with the SBS Best Practices Analyzer
http://blogs.technet.com/sbs/archive/tags/BPA/default.aspx
From: Neil Rashbrook on 28 May 2010 14:45
Jim Behning SBS MVP wrote:

>Restore to virgin hard drives goes a lot faster than a backup. Often a restore to new hard drives can take 50% less than the backup. You are running backups every night already so backup time is not part of the time equation.
>
That assumes that files don't change between the backup and the restore,
which would presumably involve disconnecting the server from the
Internet to avoid incoming email etc.

>The big point is your server should be running some sort of raid and preferably some sort of hardware raid.
>
Sure; when I say disk I actually mean "RAID logical drive", but that
actually reduces flexibility, e.g. I can't choose which drive to boot
from, but with standalone drives I can just swap them around.
From: Larry Struckmeyer[SBS-MVP] on 1 Jun 2010 09:08
Neil:

In this context, what are "stand alone drives" Once joined at the hip (mirrored)
they are not really "stand alone", and will require managment under any circumstances.

If by swapping them around, you mean booting from disk1 instead of disk0
by changing their position on the cable, have you actually tried that? Been
some time since I did that, but it seems to me it either would not work or
it was considerably easier to boot from a floppy with a modified boot.ini.

-
Larry
Please post the resolution to your
issue so others may benefit
-
Get Your SBS Health Check at
www.sbsbpa.com


> Jim Behning SBS MVP wrote:
>
>> Restore to virgin hard drives goes a lot faster than a backup. Often
>> a restore to new hard drives can take 50% less than the backup. You
>> are running backups every night already so backup time is not part of
>> the time equation.
>>
> That assumes that files don't change between the backup and the
> restore, which would presumably involve disconnecting the server from
> the Internet to avoid incoming email etc.
>
>> The big point is your server should be running some sort of raid and
>> preferably some sort of hardware raid.
>>
> Sure; when I say disk I actually mean "RAID logical drive", but that
> actually reduces flexibility, e.g. I can't choose which drive to boot
> from, but with standalone drives I can just swap them around.
>


First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: SBS 2008 and Exchange 2007
Next: SMTP removed in error from IIS in add and remove programs