.edb and /stm file formats between Exch2k SP2 and Exch2k SP3

.edb and /stm file formats between Exch2k SP2 and Exch2k SP3

Post by Craig Matcha » Wed, 12 Feb 2003 10:33:32



Hi all,

can anyone tell me if there are internal structural changes between Exch2k
SP2 and Exch2k SP3 stores (priv1.edb and priv1.stm). It's jsut that since
appying Exch2k SP3 I am getting intermittent backup failures (jet error 613
on priv1.stm). Placing the store offline, isinteg reports all is ok, however
eseutil reports the file has recrord level CRC errors. I think the only good
backup we have of the stores is pre Exch2k SP3 being applied and I don't
want to revert to it if the internal structure of the files has changed.

regards

Craig

 
 
 

.edb and /stm file formats between Exch2k SP2 and Exch2k SP3

Post by Baris Eris [MS » Thu, 13 Feb 2003 08:18:11


Correct. You can't roll back Exchange store level to SP2 while you still
have databases in SP3 level.

Try to see if backup agent has an update. Also call Microsoft support to see
if there is any known issue with your particular configuration. But I'd
definitely check with backup vendor knowledge base first.

Baris.

--
Visit these sites to automatically update your system:
http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com and http://office.microsoft.com
Always run latest versions: W2k SP3, NT4 SP6a, E2k SP3, E55 SP4, Office XP
SP2
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
You assume all risk for your use. ? 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
reserved.


Quote:> Hi all,

> can anyone tell me if there are internal structural changes between Exch2k
> SP2 and Exch2k SP3 stores (priv1.edb and priv1.stm). It's jsut that since
> appying Exch2k SP3 I am getting intermittent backup failures (jet error
613
> on priv1.stm). Placing the store offline, isinteg reports all is ok,
however
> eseutil reports the file has recrord level CRC errors. I think the only
good
> backup we have of the stores is pre Exch2k SP3 being applied and I don't
> want to revert to it if the internal structure of the files has changed.

> regards

> Craig


 
 
 

.edb and /stm file formats between Exch2k SP2 and Exch2k SP3

Post by Craig Matcha » Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:45:01


Hi Baris,

thanks for your reply. I'm running the latest version and patch levels of
our backup agent (Comvaults Galaxy DB level Agent). The failures are
happening on full backups, an incremental backup on the DB seems to work. We
also have the mailbox level agent as well and that is working as well,
though it takes a lot longer to backup the store that way.

According to the event logs, the crc error always occurs on the same record,
and only one record is being reported. We've just bought in a Exch2k guru to
help us out with possible courses of actions.

Craig



> Correct. You can't roll back Exchange store level to SP2 while you still
> have databases in SP3 level.

> Try to see if backup agent has an update. Also call Microsoft support to
see
> if there is any known issue with your particular configuration. But I'd
> definitely check with backup vendor knowledge base first.

> Baris.

> --
> Visit these sites to automatically update your system:
> http://windowsupdate.microsoft.com and http://office.microsoft.com
> Always run latest versions: W2k SP3, NT4 SP6a, E2k SP3, E55 SP4, Office XP
> SP2
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> You assume all risk for your use. ? 2002 Microsoft Corporation. All rights
> reserved.



> > Hi all,

> > can anyone tell me if there are internal structural changes between
Exch2k
> > SP2 and Exch2k SP3 stores (priv1.edb and priv1.stm). It's jsut that
since
> > appying Exch2k SP3 I am getting intermittent backup failures (jet error
> 613
> > on priv1.stm). Placing the store offline, isinteg reports all is ok,
> however
> > eseutil reports the file has recrord level CRC errors. I think the only
> good
> > backup we have of the stores is pre Exch2k SP3 being applied and I don't
> > want to revert to it if the internal structure of the files has changed.

> > regards

> > Craig