[Veritas-bu] New tape drives not appearing in /dev/rmt.
You don't need to unconfigure first. Also, depending on your setup, you may not want to configure all devices on the adapter. I tend to be more granular and run "cfgadm -c configure cX::WWPN" where WWPN is the world wide number of the device you would like to configure. You also may be able to do this at the lun level (which would be cX::WWPN,LUN), but I've never tried to, nor do I have any real reason to. msponsler wrote: > Next time try doing a `cfgadm -al`. You'll probably see the tape device > as unconfigured. do a `cfgadm -c unconfigure cX` (cX is the > channel...it's the left hand collumn in `cfgamd -al` such as c6 or c5, > etc...) and then a `cfgadm -c configure cX` That's worked for me in the > past. You'll also need to make sure that your sg.conf file has the > correct targets and luns defined in itwhen you do your `sg.build all > -mt X -ml X` > > -- > Mike Sponsler > Michael.Sponsler < at > ngc.com > > -Original Message- > From: veritas-bu-bounces < at > mailman.eng.auburn.edu > [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces < at > mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Vines, > Peter (psv2b) > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 3:31 PM > To: mail=veritas-bu < at > mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] New tape drives not appearing in /dev/rmt. > > A solution that worked, and suggested by a Veritas-bu subscriber, was to > manually add the tape drives to st.conf and reload the driver. This > successfully generated the missing /dev/rmt entries and allowed me to > proceed with the robot and drive configuration using tpconfig. > > Steps: > > Added entries to /kernel/drv/st.conf: > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=0 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=1 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=2 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=3 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=4 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=0 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=1 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=2 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=3 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; > name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=4 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; > > Determine st driver Id and display details: > modinfo | grep st > ... > > modinfo -i 49 > Id Loadaddr Size Info Rev Module Name > 49 786e 132e4 33 1 st (SCSI tape Driver 1.221) > > Reloaded st driver: > modunload -i 49 > > modinfo -i 49 > can't get module information: Invalid argument > > devfsadm -i st > > tpconfig work. > > Backups now working fine to the new tape drives. > > > > From: Vines, Peter (psv2b) > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:49 PM > To: Vines, Peter (psv2b); psv2b; mail=veritas-bu < at > mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] New tape drives not appearing in /dev/rmt. > > Adding the entry to st.conf followed by a boot -r did NOT fix my > problem. The missing /dev/rmt entries are still missing. > > I've opened another issue with SUN. > > The original six drvies in the L700 are still there and usable. > > The new four drives in the Scalar i2000 do not exist in /dev/rmt, yet > are shown in cfgadm. > > -Original Message- > From: veritas-bu-bounces < at > mailman.eng.auburn.edu on behalf of Peter > Vines > Sent: Wed 12/12/2007 7:13 PM > To: veritas-bu < at > mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] New tape drives not appearing in /dev/rmt. > > SUN's response is that my st.conf is missing: > > name="st" parent="fp" target=0; > > > > From looking at old files, this line was probably removed by mistake in > > > 2005 during another drive configuration, and obviously is not needed for > the existing L700 and 9840 drives which are working fine. > > Now to find time and get permission to boot the production server... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2007 6:39 PM, Peter Vines virginia.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I recently added connectivity to a Scalar i2000 with 4 LTO3 > > > > > > > drives, to a > Solaris 8 server. > > > > > > > I removed all the entries in /dev/rmt, reconfigure booted, went > > > > > > > through > the sg install process, yet the server does not have > > > entries in /dev/rmt > for the new drives. The server is connected > > > to two tape libraries: > > > > > > > 1-L700 with 6 9840 drives, 2-i2000 with 4 LTO3 drives. The L700 > > > > > > > drives > continue to be present on the system and usable. > > > > > > > I've also tried devfsadm, drvconfig, tapes, etc... > > > > > > > > Why don't the entries appear in /dev/rmt? > > > > > > > > I've done the same process on multiple Solaris 10 servers, > > > > > > > connected to > the same SAN and they all work fine. > > > > > > > > > > > cfgadm -o show_FCP_dev -al > > > > c8
Re: [Veritas-bu] New tape drives not appearing in /dev/rmt.
Next time try doing a `cfgadm -al`. You'll probably see the tape device as unconfigured. do a `cfgadm -c unconfigure cX` (cX is the channel...it's the left hand collumn in `cfgamd -al` such as c6 or c5, etc...) and then a `cfgadm -c configure cX` That's worked for me in the past. You'll also need to make sure that your sg.conf file has the correct targets and luns defined in itwhen you do your `sg.build all -mt X -ml X` -- Mike Sponsler [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Vines, Peter (psv2b) Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 3:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] New tape drives not appearing in /dev/rmt. A solution that worked, and suggested by a Veritas-bu subscriber, was to manually add the tape drives to st.conf and reload the driver. This successfully generated the missing /dev/rmt entries and allowed me to proceed with the robot and drive configuration using tpconfig. Steps: Added entries to /kernel/drv/st.conf: name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=0 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=1 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=2 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=3 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=4 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780a"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=0 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=1 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=2 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=3 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; name="st" parent="fp" target=0 lun=4 fc-port-wwn="500308c00189780b"; Determine st driver Id and display details: modinfo | grep st ... modinfo -i 49 Id Loadaddr Size Info Rev Module Name 49 786e 132e4 33 1 st (SCSI tape Driver 1.221) Reloaded st driver: modunload -i 49 modinfo -i 49 can't get module information: Invalid argument devfsadm -i st tpconfig work. Backups now working fine to the new tape drives. From: Vines, Peter (psv2b) Sent: Monday, December 24, 2007 12:49 PM To: Vines, Peter (psv2b); psv2b; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] New tape drives not appearing in /dev/rmt. Adding the entry to st.conf followed by a boot -r did NOT fix my problem. The missing /dev/rmt entries are still missing. I've opened another issue with SUN. The original six drvies in the L700 are still there and usable. The new four drives in the Scalar i2000 do not exist in /dev/rmt, yet are shown in cfgadm. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Peter Vines Sent: Wed 12/12/2007 7:13 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] New tape drives not appearing in /dev/rmt. SUN's response is that my st.conf is missing: name="st" parent="fp" target=0; >From looking at old files, this line was probably removed by mistake in 2005 during another drive configuration, and obviously is not needed for the existing L700 and 9840 drives which are working fine. Now to find time and get permission to boot the production server... >> >> >> On Dec 10, 2007 6:39 PM, Peter Vines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I recently added connectivity to a Scalar i2000 with 4 LTO3 >> drives, to a > Solaris 8 server. >> > I removed all the entries in /dev/rmt, reconfigure booted, went >> through > the sg install process, yet the server does not have >> entries in /dev/rmt > for the new drives. The server is connected >> to two tape libraries: >> > 1-L700 with 6 9840 drives, 2-i2000 with 4 LTO3 drives. The L700 >> drives > continue to be present on the system and usable. >> > I've also tried devfsadm, drvconfig, tapes, etc... >> > >> > Why don't the entries appear in /dev/rmt? >> > >> > I've done the same process on multiple Solaris 10 servers, >> connected to > the same SAN and they all work fine. >> > >> > cfgadm -o show_FCP_dev -al >> > c8 fc-fabricconnected configured >> > unknown >> > c8::500308c00189780a,0 med-changer connected configured >> > unknown >> > c8::500308c00189780a,1 tape connected configured >> > unknown >> > c8::500308c00189780a,2 tape connected configured >> > unknown >> > c9 fc-fabricconnected configured >> > unknown >> > c9::500308c00189780b,0 med-changer connected configured >> > unknown >> > c9::500308c00189780b,3 tape connected configured >> > unknown >> > c9::500308c00189780b,4 tape connected configured >> > unknown >> > >> > sgscan >> > /dev/sg/c0tw500308c00189780al0: Changer: "ADICScalar i2000" >> > /dev/sg/c0tw500308c00189780al1: Tape (???): "IBM ULTRIUM-TD3" >> > /dev/sg/c0tw500308c00189780al2: Tape (???): "IBM ULTRIUM-TD3" >> > /dev/sg/c0tw500308c00189780bl0: Changer: "ADIC
[Veritas-bu] Backups load on Master or Media Server? NBU 6.5.1
I'm wondering about server load during backups. Netbackup 6.5.1. If I kick off a Differential-Inc backup of a standard Unix File system, where does the load of calculating the differences between the last Differential Backup or Full Backup exist? Given the load on my master server, I'd imagine it's the Master Server that sits, and calculates the differences. Is that a wrong assumption? I'd also imagine that the load of a Full Backup of a Standard Unix File System is then less CPU intensive than a Differential-Inc Backup. It's just copying one file at a time, no differential calculations to make. And since Netbackup uses RMAN for Oracle backups, the load of backing up an Oracle DB is more so on the Media Server / Client than on the Master server. Full or Differential. Any thoughts? -- Mike Sponsler Northrop Grumman Information Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5
Alas, but it is not my choice as whether to retire it or not. It's an old cluster that is slowly going away as are the last of the Windows NT servers thankfully. On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Jeff Lightner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fedora Core 2 is extremely old. You really might want to look at > upgrading to something more modern eventually. > > If FC2 had a 2.4 kernel I'm guessing it will still work with NBU 6.x - > We had a RedHat 7.3 server (even older than Fedora Core 2) that we were > backing up until I retired it 2 weeks ago. I'm pretty sure it was using > the v5.1 client. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin, > Jonathan > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:03 PM > To: Roger Wilber; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 > > I upgraded two environments from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5.1 then one of them > recently to 6.5.2. > > Oracle RMAN - No issues > NDMP - Had an issue with NDMP but it turned out to be a filer issue. > Windows 2000 w/ 5.1 MP4 Client - No Issues > > We don't run Fedora here but I am backing up Radhat AS 3 & 4 with the > 5.1 MP4 client with no issues. > > -Jonathan > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger > Wilber > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:19 PM > To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 > > I'm looking at upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 but have a few questions. > > Has anyone had a problem with any of the following after the upgrade: > > Oracle RMAN > > NDMP > > Old v 5 clients for Fedora Core 2 or Windows NT > > Windows 2000 > > I thought I had heard rumors of problems at one point but am hoping > everythings been ironed out since then. > > -- > Roger > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > -- > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential > information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are > not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of > the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you > have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately > to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. > Thank you. > -- > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5
Fedora Core 2 is extremely old. You really might want to look at upgrading to something more modern eventually. If FC2 had a 2.4 kernel I'm guessing it will still work with NBU 6.x - We had a RedHat 7.3 server (even older than Fedora Core 2) that we were backing up until I retired it 2 weeks ago. I'm pretty sure it was using the v5.1 client. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin, Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 3:03 PM To: Roger Wilber; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 I upgraded two environments from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5.1 then one of them recently to 6.5.2. Oracle RMAN - No issues NDMP - Had an issue with NDMP but it turned out to be a filer issue. Windows 2000 w/ 5.1 MP4 Client - No Issues We don't run Fedora here but I am backing up Radhat AS 3 & 4 with the 5.1 MP4 client with no issues. -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Wilber Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:19 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 I'm looking at upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 but have a few questions. Has anyone had a problem with any of the following after the upgrade: Oracle RMAN NDMP Old v 5 clients for Fedora Core 2 or Windows NT Windows 2000 I thought I had heard rumors of problems at one point but am hoping everythings been ironed out since then. -- Roger ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. -- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5
I upgraded two environments from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5.1 then one of them recently to 6.5.2. Oracle RMAN - No issues NDMP - Had an issue with NDMP but it turned out to be a filer issue. Windows 2000 w/ 5.1 MP4 Client - No Issues We don't run Fedora here but I am backing up Radhat AS 3 & 4 with the 5.1 MP4 client with no issues. -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roger Wilber Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 1:19 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 I'm looking at upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 but have a few questions. Has anyone had a problem with any of the following after the upgrade: Oracle RMAN NDMP Old v 5 clients for Fedora Core 2 or Windows NT Windows 2000 I thought I had heard rumors of problems at one point but am hoping everythings been ironed out since then. -- Roger ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Backups start, but never write or end.
I'm curious if anyone else has encountered this and what they did to resolve the issue. I've currently got a windows 2003sp2 x32 master server (6.5.1) and media servers (2) attempting to backup a group of windows 2003sp2 r2 x64 cluster servers running SQL. My issue is that the backups for the policies that control backing up just the C:\ and the Shadow Copy Components will start, but never finish...I've included the status details below. I've been on the phone with Symantec round and round about this and have gotten the final answer of "This is a Microsoft issue, they will have to resolve it." And that may be, I'm not disputing it to much (right now). Detail Status: (I canceled this one fairly quickly, but have allowed it to run over an entire weekend in the past with the same results) 6/18/2008 1:19:33 PM - requesting resource NBU-Master 6/18/2008 1:19:33 PM - requesting resource aa0056.NBU_CLIENT.MAXJOBS.AUA591 6/18/2008 1:19:33 PM - requesting resource aa0056.NBU_POLICY.MAXJOBS.AUA591_NTFS 6/18/2008 1:19:34 PM - granted resource aa0056.NBU_CLIENT.MAXJOBS.AUA591 6/18/2008 1:19:34 PM - granted resource aa0056.NBU_POLICY.MAXJOBS.AUA591_NTFS 6/18/2008 1:19:34 PM - granted resource 000269 6/18/2008 1:19:34 PM - granted resource IBM.ULTRIUM-TD3.004 6/18/2008 1:19:34 PM - granted resource aa0058-hcart3-robot-tld-0 6/18/2008 1:19:34 PM - estimated 15879182 kbytes needed 6/18/2008 1:19:37 PM - started process bpbrm (2268) 6/18/2008 1:19:46 PM - mounting 000269 6/18/2008 1:19:46 PM - connecting 6/18/2008 1:19:47 PM - connected; connect time: 00:00:01 6/18/2008 1:20:28 PM - mounted; mount time: 00:00:42 6/18/2008 1:20:28 PM - positioning 000269 to file 115 6/18/2008 1:21:11 PM - positioned 000269; position time: 00:00:43 6/18/2008 1:21:11 PM - begin writing 6/18/2008 1:22:58 PM - end writing; write time: 00:01:47 termination requested by administrator(150) When I try to log into those machines and run NT Backup to test I get hung on "Preparing to begin shadow copy" and that's the end of my NT Backup story. I did find a hotfix on the Microsoft site that I downloaded and applied, but it hasn't helped either issue, so that was a dud (KB942843). If anyone else has encountered this and might have some insight into what can be done to resolve it, please let me know. I've checked my bpbkar logs on the servers, and they're not offering much insight either unfortunately. Michael Lawler Systems Administrator, I + Address: 207 South West Street, Auburn, IN 46706 A E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] m Phone: 260.927.3477 2 Fax: 260.927.1348 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5
I'm looking at upgrading from 6.0 MP4 to 6.5 but have a few questions. Has anyone had a problem with any of the following after the upgrade: Oracle RMAN NDMP Old v 5 clients for Fedora Core 2 or Windows NT Windows 2000 I thought I had heard rumors of problems at one point but am hoping everythings been ironed out since then. -- Roger ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] bperror -backstat command
NetBackup 6.5.1 on Windows 2003 Does anyone know why bperror –backstat –hoursago 900 does not generate a list for all clients? I run the command and approximately 5 clients don’t appear in the list, even though others in the same policy running at the same time do show up. Regards, Patrick ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet?
Have you tried restoring this data? I just did a quick perusal of the data in preparation for a restore test and I can't seem to find the registry. Since this was a file level backup I would assume we're looking for: c:\windows\system32\config\sam c:\windows\system32\config\security c:\windows\system32\config\software c:\windows\system32\config\default c:\windows\system32\config\system But they are not there. I'm going to try a restore next after modifying the registry to make sure it is restored. -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin, Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet? I just tested switching the policy to Windows-NT this and it worked fine. I'm kind of partial to using the flashbackup component though. I'll continue working with Symantec support and see if I can get that resolved. Good call! -Jonathan -Original Message- From: Mike Kiles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:18 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; Martin, Jonathan Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet? I am using 6.5.2, VCB 1.1.0 build 64559 and VC 2.5, i have some vm servers backup fine using WINNT policy type, but I get status 13 using the same clients but policy type is FLASHBACKUP --- On Tue, 6/17/08, Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet? > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu, > VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 4:27 PM > I posted this two weeks ago. I'm still working with Symantec tech > support. > > https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=21&thread.id > =44727 > > So far I've: > > Upgraded Netbackup to 6.5.2 > Upgraded the Virtual Center to 2.5 Update 1 > > The only change so far is that before the updates the files wouldn't > remove themselves from the mount point but now they do. > > -Jonathan > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jay > Sent: Tue 6/17/2008 4:26 PM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup > 6.5.2 yet? > > > > > What is your VCB issue? > > > Martin, Jonathan wrote: > > Just upgraded my first Windows 2003 6.5.1 to 6.5.2 > hoping to get some > > VCB backups working. The upgrade went fine. I like > the new priority > > override. Unfortunately it didn't fix my VCB > issue. > > > > -Jonathan > > > > > > > +- > +- > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup > Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +- > +- > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet?
I just tested switching the policy to Windows-NT this and it worked fine. I'm kind of partial to using the flashbackup component though. I'll continue working with Symantec support and see if I can get that resolved. Good call! -Jonathan -Original Message- From: Mike Kiles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 9:18 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; Martin, Jonathan Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet? I am using 6.5.2, VCB 1.1.0 build 64559 and VC 2.5, i have some vm servers backup fine using WINNT policy type, but I get status 13 using the same clients but policy type is FLASHBACKUP --- On Tue, 6/17/08, Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet? > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu, > VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 4:27 PM > I posted this two weeks ago. I'm still working with Symantec tech > support. > > https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=21&thread.id > =44727 > > So far I've: > > Upgraded Netbackup to 6.5.2 > Upgraded the Virtual Center to 2.5 Update 1 > > The only change so far is that before the updates the files wouldn't > remove themselves from the mount point but now they do. > > -Jonathan > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jay > Sent: Tue 6/17/2008 4:26 PM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup > 6.5.2 yet? > > > > > What is your VCB issue? > > > Martin, Jonathan wrote: > > Just upgraded my first Windows 2003 6.5.1 to 6.5.2 > hoping to get some > > VCB backups working. The upgrade went fine. I like > the new priority > > override. Unfortunately it didn't fix my VCB > issue. > > > > -Jonathan > > > > > > > +- > +- > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup > Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +- > +- > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet?
I am using 6.5.2, VCB 1.1.0 build 64559 and VC 2.5, i have some vm servers backup fine using WINNT policy type, but I get status 13 using the same clients but policy type is FLASHBACKUP --- On Tue, 6/17/08, Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup 6.5.2 yet? > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu, VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008, 4:27 PM > I posted this two weeks ago. I'm still working with > Symantec tech support. > > https://forums.symantec.com/syment/board/message?board.id=21&thread.id=44727 > > So far I've: > > Upgraded Netbackup to 6.5.2 > Upgraded the Virtual Center to 2.5 Update 1 > > The only change so far is that before the updates the files > wouldn't remove themselves from the mount point but now > they do. > > -Jonathan > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf > of Jay > Sent: Tue 6/17/2008 4:26 PM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Any one upgrade to Veritas Netbackup > 6.5.2 yet? > > > > > What is your VCB issue? > > > Martin, Jonathan wrote: > > Just upgraded my first Windows 2003 6.5.1 to 6.5.2 > hoping to get some > > VCB backups working. The upgrade went fine. I like > the new priority > > override. Unfortunately it didn't fix my VCB > issue. > > > > -Jonathan > > > > > > > +-- > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup > Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +-- > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] rebuild sg after adding rob ot/drives
What is the problem with that patch? I have it on my Solaris 10 systems and haven't had any problems with devices, and I just configured a new library and drives a week ago. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:00 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] rebuild sg after adding rob ot/drives Okay, the problem was that I had patch 125081-16 on Solaris 10. Patchrm'ing it and installing 125081-08 and rebooting -- -r fixed the problem. David_Lowenstein@ sd.vrtx.com Sent by: To veritas-bu-bounce veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc urn.edu Subject Re: [Veritas-bu] rebuild sg after 06/16/2008 05:34 adding rob ot/drives PM To give a little more info, I'm doing this step by step: http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/266501.htm Maybe I have the wrong max targets and max luns setting? I'm assuming that since the tape drives are at c4t2d1 and c5t4d0 I won't need anything higher than 4 targets (t4) and 2 luns (d1), But I've tried like 15 targets and 7 luns and a bunch of other junk, just to see if it will catch. Again, mt sees the drives, cfgadm sees them, but sgscan -v conf all doesn't. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
