[Veritas-bu] Blank jobs are queueing (MCare Backup) - forgot something
hi all you must check your disk free space at master, client and media last Message:I have this problem couple weeks ago..and this error because..we have full space at / (root) area..maybe you must check..your disk capacity..you must have free space at least 20% at all backup mount point.. A queueing message will be time out if you can not cancel it I hope this will help Best RegardsHarun Jonatan--Join us : BIKE TO WORK Community http://www.b2w-indonesia.org/Discussion group: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/b2w-indonesia/Cycling and Health: Did You Know...?http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/health3.php* Cyclists can expect to live for at least two years longer on average than non cyclists. 1* Occasional and regular cyclists enjoy a level of fitness equivalent to being between five and ten years younger. 2* Cycling as part of normal daily activities can yield much the same improvements in physical performance as specific training programmes.3* In 2003 there were around 40,000 deaths per year due to physical inactivity and 113 deaths due to cycling.4* Studies between countries show that the higher the rate of cycling the lower cyclists' death and injury rate.5* The Health Select Committee said that meeting the Government's cycling target would do more to tackle childhood obesity than any other measure.6* ...BUT only one in three Primary Care Trusts have someone with responsibility for cycling.7___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Blank jobs are queueing
I have this problem couple weeks ago..and this error because..we have full space at / (root) area..maybe you must check..your disk capacity..you must have free space at least 20% at all backup mount point.. A queueing message will be time out if you can not cancel it I hope this will help -Original Message- From: MCare Backup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 Sent: 16 May 2006 14:40 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Blank jobs are queueing I was wondering if anyone had seen this issue before. Using NBU 5.1 MP3 for Windows 2003 Server -- we have recently (last =week or so) started accumulating blank jobs. The job queues, but has no =policy associated with it, never runs, and can't be deleted until after =the Catalog job completes. It's not always the same client, and not =always the same type of job (mostly SQL, but sometimes filesets or =shadow copies). We've power-cycled the master and media servers a =couple of times, and that isn't fixing the issue. =20 If anyone could shed some light on this for us, I'd greatly =appreciate it. Best RegardsHarun Jonatan--Join us : BIKE TO WORK Community http://www.b2w-indonesia.org/Discussion group: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/b2w-indonesia/Cycling and Health: Did You Know...?http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/health3.php* Cyclists can expect to live for at least two years longer on average than non cyclists. 1* Occasional and regular cyclists enjoy a level of fitness equivalent to being between five and ten years younger. 2* Cycling as part of normal daily activities can yield much the same improvements in physical performance as specific training programmes.3* In 2003 there were around 40,000 deaths per year due to physical inactivity and 113 deaths due to cycling.4* Studies between countries show that the higher the rate of cycling the lower cyclists' death and injury rate.5* The Health Select Committee said that meeting the Government's cycling target would do more to tackle childhood obesity than any other measure.6* ...BUT only one in three Primary Care Trusts have someone with responsibility for cycling.7___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] BMR Boot Error
Sorry Jason, I just saw this (catching up on e-mail). Did you get past this? It sounds like you might have been trying to add a SCSI driver when you build the floppy. If you did, don't do that! It is almost never needed. Most mass storage adapters these days allow DOS to see the disk without a driver. DOS can use interrupts to read and write to the disk directly through the adapter firmware. Once it gets into Windows it will need a driver - which is supplied in the BMR config. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brooks, Jason Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:59 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] BMR Boot Error I'm still working at testing BMR. Having loads of fun ;-) Today's task: take a BMR image of a Win2K server and restore it to new hardware, all Dell boxes. Original is not RAID, BMR restore to RAID. Build a generic boot floppy with appropriate drivers, recent downloads from Dell's site. Booted the client and received an error something like this: This program cannot be run in DOS mode. Neither google nor veritas/symantec seem to know about this any later than NBU 4.5. Anyone else seen this? Suggestions for a fix? Or, just punt and open another case? Thanks, Jason Jason Brooks Computer Systems Engineer IITS - Longwood University voice - (434) 395-2916 fax - (434) 395-2035 mailto:<[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] TAN License question
Hi all, on a TAN, with shared drive, which license key required? my env based on: (1) Netbackup and (2) Media Manager 6.0MP1 and i have only this: *Robotic Library Sharing Support (Active)*. is it true ? To my knowledge .. .. .. suppose i need to SSO license .. .. .. is this correct ? Exist document with description, included feautures, for any nbu license ? thanks massimo ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Your retentions are *not* OK. Let's say you need to restore from an incremental from 60 days ago. The Full that goes with that incremental might may have been done 4 weeks before that. So the retention of your Full is OK, but in order to do a complete restore to 60 days ago, your incrementals from 60 days ago back through to its full must be available. You must increase the retentions of your incrementals by 4 weeks (I may give best tape drive utilization to simply go to 90 days). With that said, you should be aware of potential problems with this system, a system which must be *very* reliable, IMHO: * A restore from data close to the next Full, will have *many* parts (Full plus up to 27 incrementals). Are your differential backups that much different from cumulative backups? I recommend forgetting differential backups and using only full plus cumulative incrementals. With cumulative incrementals, there is very little difference between a restore soon after a full and one just before the next full. * Problems backing up *will* happen from time to time. If you "miss" a full backup, is it retried the next day (this is usually possible with NetBackup and calendar scheduling)? If not, you run the risk that the incrementals run after the failed full will be based a full that will expire before your guarantee. * I'm a firm believer in "you can't have too many backups". Monthly fulls and differential incrementals just don't give me enough copies of data to make me at all comfortable with your set up. Please consider more frequent full backups and cumulative incrementals. Yes, it means a more storage for catalog and data, but it means you have alternatives when bad things happen ... and they will. Hope this helps! cheers, wayne DLew97 wrote, in part, on 5/16/2006 9:14 AM: Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions? -- DLew97 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Duplication NBU 6.0 MP1
You high water and low water marks have nothing to do with what data gets duped to tape. Netbackup can, will, and should dupe ALL data on the DSSU to tape, as soon as it possibly can (check the staging frequency in your DSSU configmine are set to every 2 hours 5am - 6pm Sunday-Friday,) Being duped to tape does not mean it is moved off of DSSU. If your low water mark is 80% and your high water mark is 95%, backups will be written to DSSU untill it hits 95% fullat that time it will purge the oldest images already written to tape, untill it gets down to less than 80% full, then continue writing more backups. If images are not written to tape, they will not be purged from the DSSU, regardless of reaching the high water mark.. so if images are not getting duped to tape, your DSSU will fill to 100% and backups will fail. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clooney > Sent: May 15, 2006 4:32 AM > To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Duplication NBU 6.0 MP1 > > > Hi all > > Seem to be having an issue with duplication. > > The disk staging unit has a low water mark level of 80%. We > are trying to keep > as much data on disk as possible with the idea that the disk > is kept at an 80% > capacity , when data increases over this point duplication > kicks in a fire's > off to tape to bring the DSSU back to 80%. > > What is actually happening is that everything on the DSSU is > getting duplicated > of to tape. Is there something I am missing? > > Appreciated > > Dave La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
[Veritas-bu] Iron Mountain Vault Report File Issue
Title: Iron Mountain Vault Report File Issue We are in the process of switching our rotation procedure from using some Iron Mountain application to simply uploading the Netbackup Vault IM report file to inform Iron Mountain of the tapes that are getting sent to them that day. One issue that we're seeing is that when Vault runs, some tapes are still being written to. If these tapes hold valid images, Vault tries to eject them, and fails. The "Picking List for Robot" vault report shows these tapes as "**Not Ejected**", but the IM file still adds it to it's list of outgoing tapes. When the file is FTP'd, Iron Mountain thinks it's receiving the tape and later generates an exception email stating that a tape was not received. Does anyone know if it's possible to have these "**Not Ejected**" media removed from the IM report files? Thanks! -Eric THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENT MAY BE PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of this message and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and permanently delete it from your computer and destroy any printout thereof.
RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
we are an isv so we have to deal gear from all the major vendors in addition to enterprise suse and redhat deployments. linux for us costs a lot more (hw/sw/support) then solaris/hpux/aix as we havent been able to get any developer deals with novell or rh. we run freebsd on more critical gear than linux at this time too. i wish veritas would let us use that for the server and not just a client. --- "Greenberg, Katherine A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting, since every vendor I've spoken to who > manages any kind of > costing group for customers has had to work REALLY > hard to justify the > costing for using Linux in the enterprise > > > -Original Message- > From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:49 PM > To: Paul Keating; Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, > Shekhar; List Veritas > List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > There IS dollar savings even if you go the > commercial Linux variants and > pay for support as compared to commercial Unix > (especially the RISC > based solutions). > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Paul > Keating > Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM > To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List > Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking > Linux is free (as in > beer) rather than free (as in speech.) > > Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually > related to percieved > dollar savings. > > Paul > > -- > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of > > Greenberg, Katherine A > > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux > support > > > > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these > days that > > isn't looking > > at Linux for one reason or another... > > > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of Dhotre, > > Shekhar > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux > support > > > > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not > using Linux for > > NetBackup > > > > > > Any particular reason -your management is > interested in Linux ? > > - > This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged > information. If > you think you have received this > e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply > e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. > Thank you. Aetna > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - > Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:32:18AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Just curiously, which support vendor do you guys use for Linux OS? Red Hat. In the North American market, there are really only 2 serious players in the enterprise Linux space - Red Hat and SuSe/Novell. Red Hat is the clear market leader here. Since you're in Canada, stick with Red Hat for support. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, RHCE Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
RedHat. On 5/16/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Just curiously, which support vendor do you guys use for Linux OS? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Lightner Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:58 AM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support As compared to Windows or Unix? In the Unix app environments I'm running we see several opportunities for cost savings just on the hardware alone. The support is significantly cheaper as well. On the flip side there ARE things (large DBs for example) that we aren't going to move to Linux any time soon because at scale its complexity is worse than the RISC based systems AND a lot of what we want to run isn't supported on Linux at such scales in any event. -Original Message- From: Greenberg, Katherine A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: Jeff Lightner; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Interesting, since every vendor I've spoken to who manages any kind of costing group for customers has had to work REALLY hard to justify the costing for using Linux in the enterprise -Original Message- From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:49 PM To: Paul Keating; Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support There IS dollar savings even if you go the commercial Linux variants and pay for support as compared to commercial Unix (especially the RISC based solutions). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that > isn't looking > at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ 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] Symantec and Linux support
I recently did a HUGE cost savings analysis from moving one of our larger databases to a new Windows Server / Sun SPAC Platform / Redhat Linux. I can't share the presentation and 20 page word document I created (corporate privacy concerns) but basically it came down to. Windows - Very price effective - poor performance Sun SPARC - Extremely price prohibitive - Better than average performance Redhat Linux - Slightly more pricey (with 24x7 Support) than Windows - Best performance Now this was all Oracle 10g based, and involved Dell vs Sun Hardware (Sun never had a chance from a pricing perspective.) Windows and Redhat are both priced well, assuming you want support - but if I can generalize here - Redhat wins out if both price and performance are major concerns. The windows was about 40% cheaper with support and licensing but then again we run several hundred windows boxes so I'm sure we get a volume discount. :) -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greenberg, Katherine A Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: Jeff Lightner; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Interesting, since every vendor I've spoken to who manages any kind of costing group for customers has had to work REALLY hard to justify the costing for using Linux in the enterprise -Original Message- From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:49 PM To: Paul Keating; Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support There IS dollar savings even if you go the commercial Linux variants and pay for support as compared to commercial Unix (especially the RISC based solutions). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that > isn't looking > at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ 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] Blank jobs are queueing
Title: Message For example -- server 42 was listed as two of the blank jobs this morning. When checking the catalog, all drives on 42 backed up just fine, and list its respective policy, business as usual. The catalog backup has finished, so all the blank jobs have now successfully cancelled. Even though it should be error code 150 (terminated by administrator), they are listed with error 50 (client process aborted). However, I only see this on the Activity Monitor -- if I run any reports, the mysterious error 50 items are not listed in conjunction with all other items for server 42, and I don't see them on a full report for the night. These aren't really a problem yet because they don't interfere with normal functions, but they are exceptionally annoying when sorting output to see which backups need to be addressed/rerun. But I don't want to see a nuisance turn into a big problem down the road... Thanks, Skip - Original Message - From: WEAVER, Simon To: 'MCare Backup' ; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:53 PM Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Blank jobs are queueing If you run a Report for status of backups that took place, what do you see? Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: MCare Backup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 14:40To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Blank jobs are queueing I was wondering if anyone had seen this issue before. Using NBU 5.1 MP3 for Windows 2003 Server -- we have recently (last week or so) started accumulating blank jobs. The job queues, but has no policy associated with it, never runs, and can't be deleted until after the Catalog job completes. It's not always the same client, and not always the same type of job (mostly SQL, but sometimes filesets or shadow copies). We've power-cycled the master and media servers a couple of times, and that isn't fixing the issue. If anyone could shed some light on this for us, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Skip This email is for the intended addressee only.If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it.Please notify the sender by return email.The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited.Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation.EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
RE: [Veritas-bu] Strange errors in netapp messages log after upgrade of nbu from 5.1 to 60MP2 -- diag gear
I'm not sure about the sniffer issue, but I do know Data OnTap v7.1 includes updated support for NBU 6.0 (at least NBU's support of snapvaults). Are you running the latest code on the Nearstores? Check out http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel71/html/ontap/rnote/fe atures.shtml HTH - Hadrian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 2:40 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Strange errors in netapp messages log after upgrade of nbu from 5.1 to 60MP2 -- diag gear Well NetBackup 6 includes support for sharing drives between NDMP and non-NDMP use, so must include logic that probably was not there before. Check the version of ONTAP is supported with your version of NetBackup. You can turn on detailed NDMP tracing on the "NetBackup for NDMP Server" - where the option is installed. It gets very bulky but can trace every NDMP exchange. If your clocks are synch'd you may be able to see what is happening. The IBM LTO-2 drive does support the "WRITE ATTRIBUTE" command, according to the manual. It writes to the "Medium Auxilliary Memory" i.e. the LTO-CM cartridge memory. I guess it's possible that NetBackup 6 now has support for attempting to write to this, as one field available for use is "Backup Date". Maybe this is not working properly - without the detail of what was being written you cannot see if it is being done correctly. William D L Brown "George Drew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15-May-2006 19:07 To "Len Boyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject Re: [Veritas-bu] Strange errors in netapp messages log after upgrade of nbu from 5.1 to 60MP2 -- diag gear Len, This message means that you have some device in the path to your tape drive that isn't happy with 16-byte CDBs (some scsi-3 commands). This one in particular is the scsi-3 "WRITE ATTRIBUTE" command. (Reference: http://t10.org/ftp/t10/drafts/spc4/spc4r04.pdf) George On Sat, 13 May 2006, Len Boyle wrote: > Good Day, > > We upgraded a netbackup master running on solaris 9 from 5.1mp3 to 60MP2. This master runs ndmp backups on 6 R200's with fibre direct attached IBM LTO-2 tape drives. After the netbackup upgrade, with no changes with the tape drives, tape library or netapps we started to see the following messages in the /etc/messages file on the netapp. We are being told by netapp and symantec that this is a problem with scsi commands, but they report that they can not tell us what the offending scsi commands are, unless we hook up a sniffer. > So my question to this group, is Any hints on what one should use to act as a sniffer for this scsi connection? > > That is what company makes good sniffers, and what are the different features one should look for? > > Thanks for any info you guys can throw this way. > > Fri May 12 07:54:31 EDT [scsi.cmd.contingentAllegiance:error]: Device 3a.51: Contingent allegiance: cdb 0x8d. > Fri May 12 08:00:01 EDT [kern.uptime.filer:info]: 8:00am up 57 days, 18:59 427592 NFS ops, 3947850238 CIFS ops, 9 HTTP ops, 0 DAFS ops, 0 FCP > ops, 0 iSCSI ops > Fri May 12 08:03:16 EDT [scsi.cmd.contingentAllegiance:error]: Device 3b.52: Contingent allegiance: cdb 0x8d. > > ___ > 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] Symantec and Linux support
Actually here we're using a turnkey solution for Oracle RAC so it is theoretically supported by Oracle on Dell (in fact they've been the most helpful when I had Linux questions). Dell theoretically supports Linux on their PowerEdge line but in my not so humble opinion their Linux support sucks wind. They usually recommend booting from a Windows or DOS CD to try to resolve issues and couldn't even figure out what was wrong with a script they themselves wrote to do a recommended update in Linux. So far as I can tell they have exactly 2 people in that department and based on their input so far it appears they were moved from Windows support rather than having a background in Unix or Linux. We're planning on going to RedHat for Linux support of RedHat. I'd still recommend Dell hardware but would urge anyone looking at it with Linux to get their OS support from a source other than Dell. At a prior job it was RedHat all the way for Linux support. We were running on the HP PCs at that job and that hardware seemed to do fine as well. Another downside to moving from Unix on RISC to Linux on Intel is that you have to occasionally get into the OS vs Hardware finger pointing. Since the RISC systems are usually made by the same people making the Unix that runs on it this discussion is usually internal to the vendor. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:32 PM To: Jeff Lightner; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Just curiously, which support vendor do you guys use for Linux OS? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Lightner Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:58 AM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support As compared to Windows or Unix? In the Unix app environments I'm running we see several opportunities for cost savings just on the hardware alone. The support is significantly cheaper as well. On the flip side there ARE things (large DBs for example) that we aren't going to move to Linux any time soon because at scale its complexity is worse than the RISC based systems AND a lot of what we want to run isn't supported on Linux at such scales in any event. -Original Message- From: Greenberg, Katherine A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: Jeff Lightner; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Interesting, since every vendor I've spoken to who manages any kind of costing group for customers has had to work REALLY hard to justify the costing for using Linux in the enterprise -Original Message- From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:49 PM To: Paul Keating; Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support There IS dollar savings even if you go the commercial Linux variants and pay for support as compared to commercial Unix (especially the RISC based solutions). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that > isn't looking > at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___
RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
Just curiously, which support vendor do you guys use for Linux OS? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Lightner Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:58 AM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support As compared to Windows or Unix? In the Unix app environments I'm running we see several opportunities for cost savings just on the hardware alone. The support is significantly cheaper as well. On the flip side there ARE things (large DBs for example) that we aren't going to move to Linux any time soon because at scale its complexity is worse than the RISC based systems AND a lot of what we want to run isn't supported on Linux at such scales in any event. -Original Message- From: Greenberg, Katherine A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: Jeff Lightner; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Interesting, since every vendor I've spoken to who manages any kind of costing group for customers has had to work REALLY hard to justify the costing for using Linux in the enterprise -Original Message- From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:49 PM To: Paul Keating; Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support There IS dollar savings even if you go the commercial Linux variants and pay for support as compared to commercial Unix (especially the RISC based solutions). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that > isn't looking > at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ 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] Symantec and Linux support
But honestly, who's using Solaris anymore for new project implementations (open worm can now!) -Original Message- From: Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:30 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Jeff Lightner; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support I recently did a HUGE cost savings analysis from moving one of our larger databases to a new Windows Server / Sun SPAC Platform / Redhat Linux. I can't share the presentation and 20 page word document I created (corporate privacy concerns) but basically it came down to. Windows - Very price effective - poor performance Sun SPARC - Extremely price prohibitive - Better than average performance Redhat Linux - Slightly more pricey (with 24x7 Support) than Windows - Best performance Now this was all Oracle 10g based, and involved Dell vs Sun Hardware (Sun never had a chance from a pricing perspective.) Windows and Redhat are both priced well, assuming you want support - but if I can generalize here - Redhat wins out if both price and performance are major concerns. The windows was about 40% cheaper with support and licensing but then again we run several hundred windows boxes so I'm sure we get a volume discount. :) -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Greenberg, Katherine A Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: Jeff Lightner; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Interesting, since every vendor I've spoken to who manages any kind of costing group for customers has had to work REALLY hard to justify the costing for using Linux in the enterprise -Original Message- From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:49 PM To: Paul Keating; Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support There IS dollar savings even if you go the commercial Linux variants and pay for support as compared to commercial Unix (especially the RISC based solutions). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that isn't > looking at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Title: Message Or you can just use the GUI and have NetBackup manage the restore for you... Kinda nice that when you're browsing for files to restore from, the dates default back to the last successful full backup. I always found this helpful to pass out to our users, since we (for the most part) have them perform their own restores. http://seer.support.veritas.com/docs/272323.htm ~Kate -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER, SimonSent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:02 PMTo: 'Justin Piszcz'Cc: DLew97; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Absolutely correct :-) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 15:20To: WEAVER, SimonCc: DLew97; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Many people don't do cumulative, but differential, and when you do differential you need to restore, in order, each differential going in order 17th 18th 19th etc.. On 5/16/06, WEAVER, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmmm... well what I do is this.. Weekly Full Backups around 1 month Incr Backups 3 weeks Month End backups set for 12 month retention! With the settings you have, my guess is your Catalog Backups are going to grow quite fast :-) Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: DLew97 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 May 2006 14:14To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions?-- DLew97 This email is for the intended addressee only.If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it.Please notify the sender by return email.The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited.Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation.EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England This email is for the intended addressee only.If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it.Please notify the sender by return email.The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited.Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation.EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna
Re: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading 5.0 to 5.1
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:10:54PM -0400, Hindle, Greg wrote: > NBU 5.0 MP6 SOLARIS 9 > > Is there anything I need to worry about in upgrading from 5.0 to 5.1 > mpX? Are there any important steps to be taken before during or after? Take a backup first :-) Seriously, we did this a few weeks ago (to answer Kate's question - it's because we wanted 64-bit Windows support without making the major jump to 6.0) and it went nice and smoothly. -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading 5.0 to 5.1
Title: Message Yes because I am having an issue with the scheduler crashing in 5.0 mp6. I am working with support on this issue but don't want to wait months before a fix. So we are thinking about going to 5.1 to see if it fixes the problem. I cant keep going with my scheduler crashing twice a week like it is. Greg From: Greenberg, Katherine A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:15 PMTo: Hindle, Greg; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading 5.0 to 5.1 Is there a reason why you're even bothering? Serious question, not trying to be a jerk -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hindle, GregSent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:11 PMTo: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading 5.0 to 5.1 NBU 5.0 MP6 SOLARIS 9 Is there anything I need to worry about in upgrading from 5.0 to 5.1 mpX? Are there any important steps to be taken before during or after? Thanks Greg >>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IP1 This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. Ifyou think you have received thise-mail in error, please advise the sender by replye-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna
RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
Ah, excuse my broad stroke. Your shop already uses linux, so therefore your management knows the costs. I'm talking shops where there isn't a single paid/supported linux install other than the unadvertised underground ones run by the geeks, for the geeks. In a shop that has never paid for a linux support contract or an enterprise linux license, some non-tech (read: rectal cranial inversion syndrome affected) managers still think linux is "free". Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: May 16, 2006 12:47 PM > To: Paul Keating > Cc: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:05:51PM -0400, Paul Keating wrote: > > Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux > is free (as in > > beer) rather than free (as in speech.) > > Not my management. La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
RE: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading 5.0 to 5.1
Title: Message Is there a reason why you're even bothering? Serious question, not trying to be a jerk -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hindle, GregSent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 1:11 PMTo: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Upgrading 5.0 to 5.1 NBU 5.0 MP6 SOLARIS 9 Is there anything I need to worry about in upgrading from 5.0 to 5.1 mpX? Are there any important steps to be taken before during or after? Thanks Greg >>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IP1 This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna
RE: [Veritas-bu] Backups running twice during the backup window
Title: Message No DBAs are demons subordinate to the REAL spawns of satan – Developers. It has always amazed me that in an environment where one runs an OS used by thousands or organizations, a DB used by thousands of organizations and tools used by thousands of organizations in which the only unique item is in house developed code that developers will ALWAYS say it is first the DB and second the OS before looking at their own code. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:39 PM To: Martin, Jonathan (Contractor); veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Backups running twice during the backup window That's number one on my "backup failure excuses" list. -- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) Sent: May 11, 2006 10:12 AM To: Lew, David; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Backups running twice during the backup window My current theory involves DBAs being the spawns of Satan. =P -J
[Veritas-bu] Upgrading 5.0 to 5.1
Title: Upgrading 5.0 to 5.1 NBU 5.0 MP6 SOLARIS 9 Is there anything I need to worry about in upgrading from 5.0 to 5.1 mpX? Are there any important steps to be taken before during or after? Thanks Greg >>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IP1
Re: [Veritas-bu] Problem backing up 64 Bit Opteron Client
Win2k3 x64 support came in on 5.1MP4, but there are issues. We had a MS SQL cluster on x64, and the active node of the cluster would get nothing but 41 errors. Do this test - run ntbackup and try to backup the System Shadow files. If ntbackup fails, it is an error with Windows. Our problem was solved after troubleshooting with MS, and MS had to modify a number of registry keys. I will provide the details to those who request it. -Andrew Falk, Martin SZ/HZA-ITDS2 wrote: >Anybody got problems backing up Windows 2003 64 Bit Edition? >All of my Shadow copy component backups end with Status 1. > >5.1 MP5 on Master and 5.1 MP5 64 Bit Client on Opteron Client > > >10.05.2006 07:29:05 - started process bpbrm (9164) >10.05.2006 07:29:05 - connecting >10.05.2006 07:29:05 - mounting GP2148 >10.05.2006 07:29:05 - connected; connect time: 00:00:00 >10.05.2006 07:29:40 - mounted; mount time: 00:00:35 >10.05.2006 07:29:44 - positioning GP2148 to file 6 >10.05.2006 07:29:57 - positioned GP2148; position time: 00:00:13 >10.05.2006 07:29:57 - begin writing >10.05.2006 07:30:56 - Error bpbrm(pid=7712) from client DE010703: ERR - >failure reading file: Shadow Copy Components:\System State\System >Files\System Files (BEDS 0xFEDF: ) >10.05.2006 07:30:59 - end writing; write time: 00:01:02 the requested >operation was partially successful(1) > > >Does anybody know if Version 6 works properly? > >Best Regards > >Martin > >___ >Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu >http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > > -- Andrew Stueve andrew.stueve AT neovera.com ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
As compared to Windows or Unix? In the Unix app environments I'm running we see several opportunities for cost savings just on the hardware alone. The support is significantly cheaper as well. On the flip side there ARE things (large DBs for example) that we aren't going to move to Linux any time soon because at scale its complexity is worse than the RISC based systems AND a lot of what we want to run isn't supported on Linux at such scales in any event. -Original Message- From: Greenberg, Katherine A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:53 PM To: Jeff Lightner; Paul Keating; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Interesting, since every vendor I've spoken to who manages any kind of costing group for customers has had to work REALLY hard to justify the costing for using Linux in the enterprise -Original Message- From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:49 PM To: Paul Keating; Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support There IS dollar savings even if you go the commercial Linux variants and pay for support as compared to commercial Unix (especially the RISC based solutions). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that > isn't looking > at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
Interesting, since every vendor I've spoken to who manages any kind of costing group for customers has had to work REALLY hard to justify the costing for using Linux in the enterprise -Original Message- From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:49 PM To: Paul Keating; Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support There IS dollar savings even if you go the commercial Linux variants and pay for support as compared to commercial Unix (especially the RISC based solutions). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that > isn't looking > at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Blank jobs are queueing
Title: Message If you run a Report for status of backups that took place, what do you see? Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: MCare Backup [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 14:40To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Blank jobs are queueing I was wondering if anyone had seen this issue before. Using NBU 5.1 MP3 for Windows 2003 Server -- we have recently (last week or so) started accumulating blank jobs. The job queues, but has no policy associated with it, never runs, and can't be deleted until after the Catalog job completes. It's not always the same client, and not always the same type of job (mostly SQL, but sometimes filesets or shadow copies). We've power-cycled the master and media servers a couple of times, and that isn't fixing the issue. If anyone could shed some light on this for us, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Skip This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
Re: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 12:05:51PM -0400, Paul Keating wrote: > Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in > beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Not my management. > Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved > dollar savings. The perceived dollar savings is typically in the hardware, not the software. We pay as much, if not more, for Red Hat Enterprise Linux subscriptions than we do for our Microsoft Windows licenses - it's all the add-ons to Windows that really kill you. When comparing hardware though, Intel-based systems are cheaper than Sparc-based systems. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
There IS dollar savings even if you go the commercial Linux variants and pay for support as compared to commercial Unix (especially the RISC based solutions). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 12:06 PM To: Greenberg, Katherine A; Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that > isn't looking > at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Backups running twice during the backup window
Title: Message That's number one on my "backup failure excuses" list. -- -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin, Jonathan (Contractor)Sent: May 11, 2006 10:12 AMTo: Lew, David; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Backups running twice during the backup window My current theory involves DBAs being the spawns of Satan. =P -J La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
RE: [Veritas-bu] 'collect disaster recovery information'
Title: Message If you are going to use the "Intelligent Disaster Recovery" application :-) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: Covington, Garrett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 17:28To: 'veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu'Subject: [Veritas-bu] 'collect disaster recovery information' If I am not using TIR within my policies, is there any reason I should have my policies 'collect disaster recovery information'? What info does it collect? Why would it be needed? Thanks, Garrett Covington The TriZetto Group, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: 303-323-6886 c: 303-204-6695 This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
RE: [Veritas-bu] Anyone have an StorageTek SL500 library?
we've got a pair of L700s and we're recieving an SL500 for our Dev/Staging environment shortly. Haven't received it yet, but hoping to find out soon. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Justin Piszcz > Sent: May 11, 2006 7:19 AM > To: veritas-bu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Anyone have an StorageTek SL500 library? > > > We will be receiving an EVAL unit soon and wonder if anyone had any > opinions on this library? For instance, how reliable is it compared > to say, an L700? > Suppose an L700 is better, but the other problem is STK is deprecating > that library soon and the SL500 is going to be the newly supported > library. > > Justin. La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
[Veritas-bu] 'collect disaster recovery information'
If I am not using TIR within my policies, is there any reason I should have my policies ‘collect disaster recovery information’? What info does it collect? Why would it be needed? Thanks, Garrett Covington The TriZetto Group, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] p: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: 303-323-6886 c: 303-204-6695
RE: [Veritas-bu] Sg / sgen driver issue
Thanks to everyone who responded to my posting. Turned out that it was NSR.e1200 router configuration in the HP MSL5060 tape library that I needed to change. My previous admin. had configured the router with some WWN-mapping (like the soft zoning in FC switches) to bind it to only specific server's HBA, so that's why I couldn't see all the drives correctly no matter what I tried, although my OS & NBU configs all seemed perfect. I thought about this possibility with NSR.e1200 but was reluctant to touch this and this made me delay my backup server migration almost 3 weeks! - Young -Original Message- From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:08 AM To: Song, Young Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Sg / sgen driver issue All the problems I had (initially) w/ fiber zoning was my initial setup of the brocade switch. After that you just use the cfgadm commands and be on your way. Justin. On 5/15/06, Song, Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Justin, > > > Yes, I zoned my tape library on the Brocade switch and that's why the > host can see the library and its first drive. I put the library and > NBU master in a separate WWN-based zone. Is there any other special > zoning method I should be aware of? > > Thanks. > > - Young > > > -Original Message- > From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 9:49 AM > To: Song, Young > Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Sg / sgen driver issue > > Have you zoned the drives on the fiber switch? If you haven't, no > amount of boot -r or changing the st.conf is going to get your drives to show up. > > On 5/11/06, Song, Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Currently my /dev/rmt directory has symlinks for the ID 0 only no > > matter what I tried (devfsadm, cfgadm, boot -r, etc.) By any chance, > > is configuring the SG driver a next step once I have all the entries > > in /dev/rmt? If I don't have /dev/rmt entries for the 2nd drive, > > what > should I do? > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > - Young > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tristan Ball [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:38 PM > > To: Song, Young; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Sg / sgen driver issue > > > > Your st.conf probably has something like: > > > > name="st" class="scsi" > > target=0 lun=0; > > > > name="st" class="scsi" > > target=1 lun=0; > > > > You need to add lines like: > > > > name="st" class="scsi" > > target=0 lun=1; > > > > name="st" class="scsi" > > target=0 lun=2; > > > > I personally added Luns 1-7 on targets 0-7. That possibly makes boot > > up a little slower, but it also means the drives will be picked up > > almost regardless of whatever silliness I might pull on the SAN. :-) > > > > Regards, > > T. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Song, Young [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2006 8:25 AM > > To: Tristan Ball; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Sg / sgen driver issue > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tristan, > > > > > > That sounds to be my case as well. > > > > From the info for the one drive and router that are visible, how > > can I identify and add the correct entry for the other tape drive > > into st.conf file? > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > - Young > > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tristan Ball [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:15 PM > > To: Song, Young; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Sg / sgen driver issue > > > > Have a look at your st.conf. I have a MSL 6030, and it attaches to > > the FC via a built in SCSI/FC router. That router presents the tape > > drives as LUN's > > 1 & 2, with the controller as LUN 0. > > > > By default, the solaris st only scans LUN 0, but that can be changed > > in ST conf. > > > > Regards, > > Tristan. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Song, > > Young > > Sent: Thursday, 11 May 2006 4:33 AM > > To: 'veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu' > > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Sg / sgen driver issue > > > > > > > > I'm trying to set up Sun Fire-480R as a new backup server to replace > > an old one and in a situation where I'm stuck and thus want to ask here. > > > > I'm running Solaris 8 with all the latest Solaris patches including > > st driver patch, etc. & latest SAN Foundation Kit 4.4.9. > > > > And I have a FC-attached HP MSL 5060 library with 2 LTO-1 drives via > > Brocade Silkworm switches. > > > > After installing NetBackup v5.1, I tried following the steps in > > MediaMgr_DeviceConfig_Guide.txt but no matter what I tried, I > > couldn't have it see both tape drives properly and I believe it's > > something to do with sg.conf, sg.links, & devlink.tab files. However, I may be
[Veritas-bu] Netbackup Catalog DB email Notify
Title: Message Guys I am looking at the DBBackup_notify.cmd - I want to be notifed by Email what the status is. In the file I have placed call %NB_MAIL_SCRIPT% Simon@Domain.com "NetBackup db backup" %OUTF% I get an Email which is fine, but its a HUGE Email - I only wanted a status code - does anyone know the variable for this? Thanks Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
[Veritas-bu] Anyone have the latest version of backup_report.pl?
#!/usr/bin/perl # # $Id: backup_report.pl,v 1.1 1999/03/01 19:16:37 cswormr Exp $ # # $Log: backup_report.pl,v $ # Revision 1.1 1999/03/01 19:16:37 cswormr # Initial revision # It was posted on this list a while ago but was wondering if anyone had a newer version? ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Title: Message Absolutely correct :-) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 15:20To: WEAVER, SimonCc: DLew97; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Many people don't do cumulative, but differential, and when you do differential you need to restore, in order, each differential going in order 17th 18th 19th etc.. On 5/16/06, WEAVER, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmmm... well what I do is this.. Weekly Full Backups around 1 month Incr Backups 3 weeks Month End backups set for 12 month retention! With the settings you have, my guess is your Catalog Backups are going to grow quite fast :-) Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: DLew97 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 May 2006 14:14To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions?-- DLew97 This email is for the intended addressee only.If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it.Please notify the sender by return email.The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited.Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation.EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support
Honestly though, that smacks of management thinking Linux is free (as in beer) rather than free (as in speech.) Any question like that coming from mgmt is usually related to percieved dollar savings. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Greenberg, Katherine A > Sent: May 10, 2006 1:28 PM > To: Dhotre, Shekhar; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > I don't honestly know of a single company these days that > isn't looking > at Linux for one reason or another... > > Unless you aren't. And then I'll know of one :) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dhotre, > Shekhar > Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 1:23 PM > To: Scott Jacobson; Ed Wilts; List Veritas List > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Symantec and Linux support > > > >>I've been asked by my management why we're not using Linux for > NetBackup > > > Any particular reason -your management is interested in Linux ? La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
RE: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Yes the windows Backup, Archive and Restore GUI works well for this. You can use both "standard" and "calendar" mode to do restores and select individual jobs or "everything since ." The GUI automatically restores the most recent version of all files - you don't have to run separate jobs for the full, then each incremental. -Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin PiszczSent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:46 AMTo: Bob StumpCc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question From the UNIX jnbSA yes, but from Windows if you don't use the java client I am not sure you can do this. On 5/16/06, Bob Stump < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You only have to issue 1 restore. NetBackup does all the work. Simply give it the timeframe and it will restore the latest/greatest file from that timeframe. Hopefully you will select the last full as the start point and the current time as the end point. >>> "Justin Piszcz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/16/2006 10:19 AM >>> Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Many people don't do cumulative, but differential, and when you do differential you need to restore, in order, each differential going in order 17th 18th 19th etc.. On 5/16/06, WEAVER, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hmmm... well what I do is this.. Weekly Full Backups around 1 month Incr Backups 3 weeks Month End backups set for 12 month retention! With the settings you have, my guess is your Catalog Backups are going to grow quite fast :-) Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: DLew97 [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 May 2006 14:14To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions?-- DLew97 This email is for the intended addressee only.If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it.Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited.Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation.EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
Re: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
>From the UNIX jnbSA yes, but from Windows if you don't use the java client I am not sure you can do this.On 5/16/06, Bob Stump < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You only have to issue 1 restore. NetBackup does all the work. Simply give it the timeframe and it will restore the latest/greatest file from that timeframe. Hopefully you will select the last full as the start point and the current time as the end point. >>> "Justin Piszcz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/16/2006 10:19 AM >>> Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Many people don't do cumulative, but differential, and when you do differential you need to restore, in order, each differential going in order 17th 18th 19th etc.. On 5/16/06, WEAVER, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Hmmm... well what I do is this.. Weekly Full Backups around 1 month Incr Backups 3 weeks Month End backups set for 12 month retention! With the settings you have, my guess is your Catalog Backups are going to grow quite fast :-) Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: DLew97 [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 May 2006 14:14To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions?-- DLew97 This email is for the intended addressee only.If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it.Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited.Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation.EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
Re: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Many people don't do cumulative, but differential, and when you do differential you need to restore, in order, each differential going in order 17th 18th 19th etc.. On 5/16/06, WEAVER, Simon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hmmm... well what I do is this.. Weekly Full Backups around 1 month Incr Backups 3 weeks Month End backups set for 12 month retention! With the settings you have, my guess is your Catalog Backups are going to grow quite fast :-) Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: DLew97 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 May 2006 14:14To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions?-- DLew97 This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
[Veritas-bu] Odd down / up behavior on drives
Title: Odd down / up behavior on drives Greetings all… I’ve got an environmental issue that I was hoping someone might be able to help shed some light on. The environment is HP-UX Master/Media Servers. Switches are McData 4500’s, IBM 3494 libraries with a mixture of 3590 and 3592 drives. We’re running Netbackup 5.1 MP4. We get a routine occurrence where the drives (both types) will just go down, both SSO and dedicated. If they’re upped, they’ll run fine again. We can’t find a reason for them to just go down in any of the HP/IBM/NBU logs. Drive cleaning is managed by the IBM 3494 Library Manager. Has anyone else seen this in their environments? Where might we look to get some ideas? We have "X" number of drives and have to manually intervene to up "Y" number of drives/day. Nick Nick Rushizky - Aquent, Inc. Backup Administrator Northwestern Mutual "You have enemies? Good. That means that somewhere, some time in your life, you stood up for something." -Sir Winston Churchill This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential information of Northwestern Mutual. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify Northwestern Mutual immediately by returning it to the sender and delete all copies from your system. Please be advised that communications received via the Northwestern Mutual Secure Message Center are secure. Communications that are not received via the Northwestern Mutual Secure Message Center may not be secure and could be observed by a third party. Thank you for your cooperation.
AW: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Right. In order to restore a particular state, you will need the latest backup before that time and all the incrementals in between. Unfortunately, NetBackup does not honour this fact and will expire a full backup even if there are still succeeding incrementals left. So my guess is that you will have to set your retention period to 67 days. Heiko ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Title: Message Hmmm... well what I do is this.. Weekly Full Backups around 1 month Incr Backups 3 weeks Month End backups set for 12 month retention! With the settings you have, my guess is your Catalog Backups are going to grow quite fast :-) Also Justin, in a restore process, it should be the last Full plus last Incr to recover. (Cumulative) Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: DLew97 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 14:14To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions?-- DLew97 This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
[Veritas-bu] Sg / sgen driver issue / solaris VS HPUX
solaris always issue with persisten binding, VERITAS recommends adding the following forceload statements to the/etc/system file. These statements prevent the st and sg drivers from beingunloaded from memory.forceload: drv/stforceload: drv/sg Best RegardsHarun Jonatan--Join us : BIKE TO WORK Community http://www.b2w-indonesia.org/Discussion group: http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/b2w-indonesia/Cycling and Health: Did You Know...?http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/health3.php* Cyclists can expect to live for at least two years longer on average than non cyclists. 1* Occasional and regular cyclists enjoy a level of fitness equivalent to being between five and ten years younger. 2* Cycling as part of normal daily activities can yield much the same improvements in physical performance as specific training programmes.3* In 2003 there were around 40,000 deaths per year due to physical inactivity and 113 deaths due to cycling.4* Studies between countries show that the higher the rate of cycling the lower cyclists' death and injury rate.5* The Health Select Committee said that meeting the Government's cycling target would do more to tackle childhood obesity than any other measure.6* ...BUT only one in three Primary Care Trusts have someone with responsibility for cycling.7___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Most people run a full backup weekly and then incrementals in between and then set your FULL retention to 60 days. Consider what happens if 1 full went bad? You would be out many weeks of data! Also, that is a bad way of doing things, 1 full every 4 weeks and X number of incrementals? You'll spend a VERY long time restoring the incrementals after you restore the full backup. On 5/16/06, DLew97 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions? -- DLew97 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Re: nbpem process terminating
hi Ian ! last week i have the same problem, no schedule running after upgrade, and no status at all, the same problem if i am doing manual backup. i trying to run manual backup from client, and found the error status is status 25 not from activity monitor but from backup progress at jbpSA after check the log daemon i am found "nbpem process terminating" but, finally the error came from the /etc/hosts the configuration at /etc/hosts must be: 10.2.200.321 testupgrade.domain.com testupgrade and can not be like: 10.2.200.321 testupgrade127.0.0.1 localhost10.2.200.321 testupgrade testupgrade. loghost and after change /etc/hosts..the schedule backup and manual backup..runing smoothly.. after have this error experienced..the /etc/hosts totally important..if you dont use dns server and check for /etc/nsswitch.conf the configuration must be: hosts: files dns the format of /etc/hosts must be: 10.2.200.321 testupgrade.domain.com testupgrade i hope this will help! any body knows why the /etc/hosts configuration must be : 10.2.200.321 testupgrade.domain.com testupgrade ???Best Regards Harun Jonatan Veritas System Engineer Message: 5To: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 17:36:47 +1000Subject: [Veritas-bu] nbpem process terminatingHi,We have just recently upgraded our Solaris master server from NBU 5.1 toNBU6.0 MP2. Only our Master server has been upgraded at this stage. Sincethe upgrade, the nbpem process seems to die about once a day, causing jobsto stop getting scheduled.Support have told me that there is a know issue with nbpem when checkpointrestarts are enabled, so I have disabled them all, but the nbpem processstill dies for no apparent reason.The nbpem log does not show any errors. It appears as though the processsimply dies. Has anyone seen this? Ian Fehring Lead Technical Specialist, Storage Management National Australia Bank Level 1, 122 Lewis Rd Tel: +61 (0) 3 9886 2367 | Fax: +61 (0) 3 9886 2700 | Mob: +61 (0)417 520 953 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Blank jobs are queueing
I was wondering if anyone had seen this issue before. Using NBU 5.1 MP3 for Windows 2003 Server -- we have recently (last week or so) started accumulating blank jobs. The job queues, but has no policy associated with it, never runs, and can't be deleted until after the Catalog job completes. It's not always the same client, and not always the same type of job (mostly SQL, but sometimes filesets or shadow copies). We've power-cycled the master and media servers a couple of times, and that isn't fixing the issue. If anyone could shed some light on this for us, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Skip
[Veritas-bu] Retention Period Question
Our corporate retention policy for data is 60days guaranteed. How should I setup my retention periods? Currently we run a FULL every 4 weeks and a Differential Incremental every day. I have 60 days set for the incremental and 90 days set for the full. I am not sure if this setting is correct. I need to guarantee 60 days of data at all times. I am afraid that the earlier FULL is needed to do a restoration if the the file has not been picked up by the incrementals. Any suggestions?-- DLew97
RE: [Veritas-bu] Bpsched crashing
Title: Bpsched crashing if you have a hang, truss bpsched main and see whether it's blocked doing a msgsnd(). Do the ipcs -qA and look for CBYTES being close to QBYTES. If it is truss the rest of the bpscheds and see if any are attempting to do a msgrcv(). Increasing the queue varies depending on OS release. For Sol 9 check http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/806-7009/6jftnqsjp?a=view. msgsys:msginfo_msgtql is the pertinant one for sol9 iirc. msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb and others used to be relevant on previous versions. Apparently the message passing routines have been reworked in NBU6 - I haven't seen this myself, but it would be welcome as they're sorely in need of it. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hindle, GregSent: 15 May 2006 15:06To: Len Boyle; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Bpsched crashing We had the shared memory setting set to use all available memory and were told by Symantec to lower that figure to 6 gig and leave 2 gig for Solaris 9 (we jave 8 gig ram). We have not adjusted any msg queues. Where would I look and what should they be? Greg From: Len Boyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:48 AMTo: Hindle, Greg; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Bpsched crashing Good Morning Greg, Have you changed setting in the /etc/system file to increased things such as shared memory and msg queues? len From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hindle, GregSent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:04 AMTo: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Bpsched crashing Nb 5.0 mp6 Solaris 9 We are having an on going issue with bpsched crashing/stopping. When this happens all the jobs go 150. Sometimes it recovers and restarts the jobs and other times we have to stop and start the services. Has any one else had this issues and what you did to fix? We have a open ticket with Symantec and they have recommend some tuning changes, which we have done, but it still went down over the weekend. Symantec thinks it is a resource issue. We have 8 gig of ram in the master server and it seems to crash most often about 15 minutes in the main backup window. We would have around 200 jobs running, with 800 queued. This has not been an issue in the past. Any ideas? Greg >>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IP1 NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
RE: [Veritas-bu] SAN backups
Just to add to this, the 2 SAN Media Server are backing up Windows Servers and a HUGE variety of file sizes, large, small, all compressed data too (compressed on the disk). Compared to our old backup window of 45 hours, this is better, but amazed your getting that speed over LAN, unless the files are large in size (DB size perhaps) Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Atif Munir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 13:01 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] SAN backups Now this is the time we need to do something for our backups as the time to take the backup of 2TB is about 12 hours as its over the LAN and I am interested to shift it over the SAN bakcup. What we have is listed below. 1- L100 with 5 LTO3 Drives attached to the veritas netbackup server via SCSI. 2- Backup server is not connected to the SAN. its over the lan and all data travel's over the dedicated LAN. 3- Hosts are connected to the san via fiber and are there on the dedicated LAN for backup purposes. What I am thinking that we should have to plug a seperate hba on the hosts and on the backup server and put them on one zone on the switch. OR we have to connect the library directly to the san switch? Thanks and Regards, atif ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] SAN backups
Ok well im confused, as I have a SAN Media Server, that holds over 1.5TB of Data, using SSO / SAN Media Server over fiber and even though the policy completes ok, it takes 14 hours for the VERY last steam to end. Most streams end around 10 hours or so !!! So now im confused! Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Atif Munir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 13:01 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] SAN backups Now this is the time we need to do something for our backups as the time to take the backup of 2TB is about 12 hours as its over the LAN and I am interested to shift it over the SAN bakcup. What we have is listed below. 1- L100 with 5 LTO3 Drives attached to the veritas netbackup server via SCSI. 2- Backup server is not connected to the SAN. its over the lan and all data travel's over the dedicated LAN. 3- Hosts are connected to the san via fiber and are there on the dedicated LAN for backup purposes. What I am thinking that we should have to plug a seperate hba on the hosts and on the backup server and put them on one zone on the switch. OR we have to connect the library directly to the san switch? Thanks and Regards, atif ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] SAN backups
Now this is the time we need to do something for our backups as the time to take the backup of 2TB is about 12 hours as its over the LAN and I am interested to shift it over the SAN bakcup. What we have is listed below. 1- L100 with 5 LTO3 Drives attached to the veritas netbackup server via SCSI. 2- Backup server is not connected to the SAN. its over the lan and all data travel's over the dedicated LAN. 3- Hosts are connected to the san via fiber and are there on the dedicated LAN for backup purposes. What I am thinking that we should have to plug a seperate hba on the hosts and on the backup server and put them on one zone on the switch. OR we have to connect the library directly to the san switch? Thanks and Regards, atif ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] bpverify(1) is a joke, is it possible to restore to /dev/null?
One could also try "bpduplicate"-ing the original tape to another one. Regards, Mike Ellwood > If your running Solaris, you could try the 'tcopy' command. > From the man pages - > > NAME > tcopy - copy a magnetic tape > > SYNOPSIS > tcopy source [destination] > > DESCRIPTION > The tcopy utility copies the magnetic tape mounted on the > tape drive specified by the source argument. The only > assumption made about the contents of a tape is that there > are two tape marks at the end. > > When only a source drive is specified, tcopy scans the tape, > and displays information about the sizes of records and tape > files. If a destination is specified, tcopy makes a copies > the source tape onto the destination tape, with blocking > preserved. As it copies, tcopy produces the same output as > it does when only scanning a tape. > > The tcopy utility requires the use of Berkeley-compatible > device names. For example, > > example% tcopy /dev/rmt/1b /dev/rmt/2b > > hth > > best > > > >>On 5/15/06, Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>All, > >> > >>I ran a restore last week which was on three tapes, on the > second tape > >>it failed due to an I/O error, I repeated the restore and the same > >>result occurred. > >> > >>I ran bpverify on the backup image ID and it said > everything was OK, > >>obviously this is not a good way to test a tape's integrity! > >> > >>Is there a way to restore all files to /dev/null? > >> > >>Justin. > >> > >>___ > >>Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > >> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > > -- > --- > > REMEMBER - the safety of your data is your responsibility > If it's important to you - ** MAKE A COPY ** or 2 or 3 or 4 > or > > There is only one certainty about storage systems - they *will* fail ! > > Chris Freemantle > Data Manager > Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience > > Tel. +44 (0)20 7833 7472 reception > Tel. +44 (0)20 7833 7496 direct > Fax +44 (0)20 7813 1420 > > Home Page: http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk > ___ > 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] NBU 6.0 catalog size vs 5.1 catalog size
Hi. No message was displayed during the upgrades that I have done regarding space. That could be due to enough space available for any temp procedures, but after the upgrades, no increase is size was noticed. If any conversion is done on the existing images, it is not visible (it may be a background process). What I did see during the nbpushdata command running was that it was accesing Media manager info (tapes, devices etc) , so I think it safe to say that EMM only collect very small amounts of data. Jim -Original Message- From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:11 AM To: 'Jim Peppas'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] NBU 6.0 catalog size vs 5.1 catalog size Jim Can you clarify something for me - did you NEED additional disk space for the nbpushdata command? IE: say my DB is 30GB in size, do you need that same sort of spare space on disk?? Answers on a postcard to Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Jim Peppas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 May 2006 21:15 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; WEAVER, Simon Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] NBU 6.0 catalog size vs 5.1 catalog size Hi All. I have done some upgrades from 5 to 6 and have not seen a noticable change in the Image database. My databases were small but I don't think that you should have a problem there. As far as the logging is concerned, there is much more control of the logging per process. Logging levels for bpsched are no longer present because it not there any longer. Regards, Jim Peppas -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bob944 Sent: Saturday, April 29, 2006 9:23 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; 'WEAVER, Simon' Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] NBU 6.0 catalog size vs 5.1 catalog size > I asked a question similar to this, in regards to whether NBPUSHDATA > needs more disk space, but I am still not entirely sure. > > The response Jim made indicated, that Netbackup leaves the current DB > intact and perhaps creates a new DB - but surely this means more disk > space. nbpushdata doesn't need more space unless you have a _lot_ of media and devices--enough to grow the Sybase DB. pushdata loads the 5.x flat-file media manager information into the relational database which has been present since NBU 6 installation time. IIRC, the relational DB starts out at 25MB or so. NBU 6 installation needed more space to start with (check the Installation Guide for specific per-platform requirements). This part is trivial. Do be aware that backups of the relational DB, by default, are staged to a staging directory within the NetBackup structure--so either symlink that somewhere else or allow for the space at hot-backup time. As another poster mentioned, the new unified logging is very space-hungry. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] bpverify(1) is a joke, is it possible to restore to /dev/null?
One could also try "bpduplicate"-ing the original tape to another one. Regards, Mike Ellwood > If your running Solaris, you could try the 'tcopy' command. > From the man pages - > > NAME > tcopy - copy a magnetic tape > > SYNOPSIS > tcopy source [destination] > > DESCRIPTION > The tcopy utility copies the magnetic tape mounted on the > tape drive specified by the source argument. The only > assumption made about the contents of a tape is that there > are two tape marks at the end. > > When only a source drive is specified, tcopy scans the tape, > and displays information about the sizes of records and tape > files. If a destination is specified, tcopy makes a copies > the source tape onto the destination tape, with blocking > preserved. As it copies, tcopy produces the same output as > it does when only scanning a tape. > > The tcopy utility requires the use of Berkeley-compatible > device names. For example, > > example% tcopy /dev/rmt/1b /dev/rmt/2b > > hth > > best > > > >>On 5/15/06, Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>All, > >> > >>I ran a restore last week which was on three tapes, on the > second tape > >>it failed due to an I/O error, I repeated the restore and the same > >>result occurred. > >> > >>I ran bpverify on the backup image ID and it said > everything was OK, > >>obviously this is not a good way to test a tape's integrity! > >> > >>Is there a way to restore all files to /dev/null? > >> > >>Justin. > >> > >>___ > >>Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > >> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > > -- > --- > > REMEMBER - the safety of your data is your responsibility > If it's important to you - ** MAKE A COPY ** or 2 or 3 or 4 > or > > There is only one certainty about storage systems - they *will* fail ! > > Chris Freemantle > Data Manager > Wellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience > > Tel. +44 (0)20 7833 7472 reception > Tel. +44 (0)20 7833 7496 direct > Fax +44 (0)20 7813 1420 > > Home Page: http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk > ___ > 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] Strange errors in netapp messages log after upgrade of nbu from 5.1 to 60MP2 -- diag gear
Well NetBackup 6 includes support for sharing drives between NDMP and non-NDMP use, so must include logic that probably was not there before. Check the version of ONTAP is supported with your version of NetBackup. You can turn on detailed NDMP tracing on the "NetBackup for NDMP Server" - where the option is installed. It gets very bulky but can trace every NDMP exchange. If your clocks are synch'd you may be able to see what is happening. The IBM LTO-2 drive does support the "WRITE ATTRIBUTE" command, according to the manual. It writes to the "Medium Auxilliary Memory" i.e. the LTO-CM cartridge memory. I guess it's possible that NetBackup 6 now has support for attempting to write to this, as one field available for use is "Backup Date". Maybe this is not working properly - without the detail of what was being written you cannot see if it is being done correctly. William D L Brown "George Drew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15-May-2006 19:07 To "Len Boyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject Re: [Veritas-bu] Strange errors in netapp messages log after upgrade of nbu from 5.1 to 60MP2 -- diag gear Len, This message means that you have some device in the path to your tape drive that isn't happy with 16-byte CDBs (some scsi-3 commands). This one in particular is the scsi-3 "WRITE ATTRIBUTE" command. (Reference: http://t10.org/ftp/t10/drafts/spc4/spc4r04.pdf) George On Sat, 13 May 2006, Len Boyle wrote: > Good Day, > > We upgraded a netbackup master running on solaris 9 from 5.1mp3 to 60MP2. This master runs ndmp backups on 6 R200's with fibre direct attached IBM LTO-2 tape drives. After the netbackup upgrade, with no changes with the tape drives, tape library or netapps we started to see the following messages in the /etc/messages file on the netapp. We are being told by netapp and symantec that this is a problem with scsi commands, but they report that they can not tell us what the offending scsi commands are, unless we hook up a sniffer. > So my question to this group, is Any hints on what one should use to act as a sniffer for this scsi connection? > > That is what company makes good sniffers, and what are the different features one should look for? > > Thanks for any info you guys can throw this way. > > Fri May 12 07:54:31 EDT [scsi.cmd.contingentAllegiance:error]: Device 3a.51: Contingent allegiance: cdb 0x8d. > Fri May 12 08:00:01 EDT [kern.uptime.filer:info]: 8:00am up 57 days, 18:59 427592 NFS ops, 3947850238 CIFS ops, 9 HTTP ops, 0 DAFS ops, 0 FCP > ops, 0 iSCSI ops > Fri May 12 08:03:16 EDT [scsi.cmd.contingentAllegiance:error]: Device 3b.52: Contingent allegiance: cdb 0x8d. > > ___ > 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] Netware file excludes
Title: Message Mark Just to add to this, is there anything on the CLIENT side of the Netware Server that allows you to exclude from the GUI? Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 10:01To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Netware file excludesHi all Anyone know how to exclude always open files from a netware backup? Netbackup 5.1 MP4 Netware 6 ThanksMark GoodchildBranches Remediation J.P.Morgan ChasePhone: 01202347149Mail: Mark A Goodchild/[EMAIL PROTECTED]E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
RE: [Veritas-bu] Netware file excludes
Title: Message Mark Not a novell expert, but is it something to do with editing a file called novell.nks and specify what needs to be excluded?? Regards Simon Weaver3rd Line Technical SupportWindows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 May 2006 10:01To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Netware file excludesHi all Anyone know how to exclude always open files from a netware backup? Netbackup 5.1 MP4 Netware 6 ThanksMark GoodchildBranches Remediation J.P.Morgan ChasePhone: 01202347149Mail: Mark A Goodchild/[EMAIL PROTECTED]E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England
[Veritas-bu] Netware file excludes
Hi all Anyone know how to exclude always open files from a netware backup? Netbackup 5.1 MP4 Netware 6 Thanks Mark Goodchild Branches Remediation J.P.Morgan Chase Phone: 01202347149 Mail: Mark A Goodchild/[EMAIL PROTECTED] E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
