[Veritas-bu] Active directory backup att objekt level

[Fredrik]

Hi 
can you backup windows active dierctory at a objekt level with netbackup 5.1 mp5

Fredrik Dahlberg  - Backupadministrator
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 65
Tel mob: +46 (0)733-31 53 29
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

[Didier BRUN]

Thank you for all the messages,

I read few messages of the solution  falconstore  VTL of storagetek.
Do you think that the DSSU will replace the solutions VTL ?

Didier
   

Hampus Lind a écrit :

Hi,

Here in Sweden Diligent is pretty cheap I think, or at least at the same
level as other vendors. But of course management people can twist things the
other way...

Did you go with another VTL/de-dup solution instead? 

Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Skickat: den 15 september 2006 15:33
Till: Hampus Lind; Paul Keating; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kopia: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: RE: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?


We were looking at an offsite backup solution w/ Diligent here and everyone
we talked to (Local Reseller, Diligent Sales  Technical resources) said our
HDS AMS500 w/ SATA Shelves would be fine.  In the end we balked at the
Diligent Protectier software cost and went another way but cost aside this
solution was our best choice.

-Jonathan
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hampus Lind
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:12 AM
To: 'Paul Keating'; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

Hi,

ProtecTier on work over FC protocol but I have never heard that it require
FC disk... When I meet with diligent people from Israel, I told them that we
already have 7 TB of SATA that we which to re-use, that would be no
problem, they said.

They only support FC arrays today, but in that array you can have both FC
and SATA drives. It feels strange creating a backup-to-disk solution that
only support FC disks...

The guy selling you ProtecTier, does he work at HDS and want you to buy a
solution that includes expensive FC disks?? ;-)

I think you need to find another source to Diligent, or perhaps I need to
find one that tells me the truth.. :-)





Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Paul Keating [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 15 september 2006 14:51
Till: Hampus Lind; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kopia: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: RE: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

I like the look of the ProtecTIER product.

However, I've come up with some information that I can't get a hard answer
on.
The info I got from Diligent coonfused me even more.

Everything I can find, and am told by either HDS, or Diligent says that
Protectier requires FC disk...as in, not SATA..

I find this confusing.sure the data de-duplication technology requires
knowing where the data is on disk, quickly, etc, etc. So I said to the
Diligent rep I spoke with Ok, so the de-duplication algorithm actually has
to search the disk to find patterns? to which I got the response
(paraphrasing)Oh no, of course not...all of the data on disk is mapped in
RAM, we can map 1PB of disk in 4GB of RAM. The appliance doesn't need to
read the disk to find hash matches, etc. All of that is done in RAM and only
the unique data that needs to be written to disk is written to disk.
So I asked why then would FC disk be necessary???
After pushing it a bit, I got a response that Yes, it would technically
work with SATA disk, however there would be a performance hit due to
SATA's transfer speed, of approx 40%, so they don't support SATA.

Sohere's my confusionsince the de-duplication is being done in
stream on the appliance before the data ever gets to the disk array, then
with the advertised 25:1 ratio, only 4% of the data hitting the box is
getting written to disk.

Even if the SATA disk is 80% slower that FC (being fascetious here),
shouldn't it still be like 5 times faster than another product that writes
everything to SATA disk? Yes all the other VTL vendors are basing their
products on SATA (as Diligent is with their VTF Open
product)


Paul
  

 

  



___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

[Clooney, David]

 Not answering you question but if you media server is writing to disk
you might want to check and implement

SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK 

Dave





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kathryn
Hemness
Sent: 18 September 2006 23:59
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

Greetings,

My backup enterprise currently consists of a Solaris 9 Sun V240 master
and 3 Sun X4200 RHEL3 Linux Media Servers running NB51MP5.

I've been getting the following messages for backups and duplications to
storage units on my Linux media servers:

   problems encountered during setup of shared memory (89)

I use disk storage units and a mixed LTO2/LTO3 library.

I've attempted to setup my Linux media servers similar to my Solaris 9
master by using the same NUMBER/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS files in
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/config.  But on my Solaris 9 master, I also had
/etc/system settings for msgsys, semsys, and shmsys values.

I haven't been able to find anything about needing similar /etc/system
tuning on Linux (I believe the /etc/system equivalents are set via the
/etc/sysctl.conf file).

I'm hoping someone can tell me if all of the /etc/system parameters can
be set with sysctl on Linux and if their names are the same.  Here are
my current Solaris /etc/system parameters:

set msgsys:msginfo_msgmap=512
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmax=8192
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=65536
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=256
set msgsys:msginfo_msgssz=16
set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=512
set msgsys:msginfo_msgseg=8192

set semsys:seminfo_semmap=64
set semsys:seminfo_semmni=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmns=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=300
set semsys:seminfo_semopm=32
set semsys:seminfo_semume=64

set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=536870912
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=1
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=220
set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=100

Any help is appreciated.
--Kathy
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu



Notice to recipient:
The information in this internet e-mail and any attachments is confidential and 
may be privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the 
intended addressee please notify the sender immediately by telephone. If you 
are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any 
action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be 
unlawful.

When addressed to external clients any opinions or advice contained in this 
internet e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any 
applicable governing terms of business or client engagement letter issued by 
the pertinent Bank of America group entity.

If this email originates from the U.K. please note that Bank of America, N.A., 
London Branch and Banc of America Securities Limited are authorised and 
regulated by the Financial Services Authority.

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] Bppllist columns

[Clooney, David]

Hi All

Does anyone have the columns for 

bppllist $policy 

Basically trying to put something together based on policy type, trying to get 
the columns specifically for the INFO section below.

Eg.

CLASS croyvtsms_oracle *NULL* 0 50 169200 *NULL*
NAMES
INFO 0 0 0 0 *NULL* 0 0 2147483647 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1041511308 
3E0E2989A5AF4185B6575FE1DA53C67A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Regards

Dave

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Didier BRUN
Sent: 19 September 2006 09:54
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Cc: 'Martin, Jonathan (Contractor)'
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

Thank you for all the messages,

I read few messages of the solution  falconstore  VTL of storagetek.
Do you think that the DSSU will replace the solutions VTL ?

Didier
   

Hampus Lind a écrit :

Hi,

Here in Sweden Diligent is pretty cheap I think, or at least at the 
same level as other vendors. But of course management people can twist 
things the other way...

Did you go with another VTL/de-dup solution instead? 

Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 15 september 2006 15:33
Till: Hampus Lind; Paul Keating; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kopia: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: RE: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?


We were looking at an offsite backup solution w/ Diligent here and 
everyone we talked to (Local Reseller, Diligent Sales  Technical 
resources) said our HDS AMS500 w/ SATA Shelves would be fine.  In the 
end we balked at the Diligent Protectier software cost and went another 
way but cost aside this solution was our best choice.

-Jonathan
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hampus 
Lind
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:12 AM
To: 'Paul Keating'; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

Hi,

ProtecTier on work over FC protocol but I have never heard that it 
require FC disk... When I meet with diligent people from Israel, I told 
them that we already have 7 TB of SATA that we which to re-use, that 
would be no problem, they said.

They only support FC arrays today, but in that array you can have both 
FC and SATA drives. It feels strange creating a backup-to-disk solution 
that only support FC disks...

The guy selling you ProtecTier, does he work at HDS and want you to buy 
a solution that includes expensive FC disks?? ;-)

I think you need to find another source to Diligent, or perhaps I need 
to find one that tells me the truth.. :-)





Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: Paul Keating [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skickat: den 15 september 2006 14:51
Till: Hampus Lind; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kopia: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: RE: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

I like the look of the ProtecTIER product.

However, I've come up with some information that I can't get a hard 
answer on.
The info I got from Diligent coonfused me even more.

Everything I can find, and am told by either HDS, or Diligent says that 
Protectier requires FC disk...as in, not SATA..

I find this confusing.sure the data de-duplication technology 
requires knowing where the data is on disk, quickly, etc, etc. So I 
said to the Diligent rep I spoke with Ok, so the de-duplication 
algorithm actually has to search the disk to find patterns? to which I 
got the response (paraphrasing)Oh no, of course not...all of the data 
on disk is mapped in RAM, we can map 1PB of disk in 4GB of RAM. The 
appliance doesn't need to read the disk to find hash matches, etc. All 
of that is done in RAM and only the unique data that needs to be written to 
disk is written to disk.
So I asked why then would FC disk be necessary???
After pushing it a bit, I got a response that Yes, it would technically 
work with SATA disk, however there would be a performance hit due to 
SATA's transfer speed, of approx 40%, so they don't support SATA.

Sohere's my confusionsince the de-duplication is being done in 
stream on the appliance before the data ever gets to the disk array, 
then with the advertised 25:1 ratio, only 4% of the data hitting the 
box is getting written to disk.

Even if the SATA disk is 80% slower that FC (being fascetious here), 
shouldn't it still be like 5 times faster than another product that 
writes everything to SATA disk? Yes all the other VTL vendors are 
basing their products on SATA (as Diligent is with their VTF Open
product)


Paul
  

 

  

[Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

[Hampus Lind]

Hi all,



Any one running Vmware against netbackup?

We have a new HP blade system which will run Vmware,
and I wonder how I can back this up to netbackup? Our blade guys tell me that vmware
comes with its own backup solution that is preferred to use.



Please advice in what is the best way to handle
backups of vmware system.



Thanks and regards,



Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]








___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

[Jeff Lightner]

/etc/sysctl.conf is the correct file.

You can learn more about it by reading the man page for it and also the
one for sysctl.

The available parameters are in /proc/sys/kernel.  You can cat each of
these to see current value (assuming they are using defaults not shown
in sysctl.conf).

There are shm and sem parameters (e.g. shmmax) but they are not exactly
the same.  You should focus on the shm parameters given the message
you're seeing.

Note:  RHEL 3 is 32 bit.  You can only set shmmax to 4 GB - 1 byte at
most.  (4 GB is maximum but if you set it to that it actually goes back
to 0 so you have to subtract the 1 byte).  Even with that the best
you'll get is 1.6 GB without doing some extra magic.   

Unfortunately since the fibre on Linux didn't understand our fibre
bridges we never set up Linux as a media server so I can't tell you what
the settings should be.  Just wanted to offer the confirmation you asked
for about sysctl.conf and a little more info.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kathryn
Hemness
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 6:59 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

Greetings,

My backup enterprise currently consists of a Solaris 9 Sun V240 master
and 3 Sun X4200 RHEL3 Linux Media Servers running NB51MP5.

I've been getting the following messages for backups and duplications
to storage units on my Linux media servers:

   problems encountered during setup of shared memory (89)

I use disk storage units and a mixed LTO2/LTO3 library.

I've attempted to setup my Linux media servers similar to my Solaris 9
master by using the same NUMBER/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS files in
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/config.  But on my Solaris 9 master, I also
had /etc/system settings for msgsys, semsys, and shmsys values.

I haven't been able to find anything about needing similar
/etc/system tuning on Linux (I believe the /etc/system equivalents are
set
via the /etc/sysctl.conf file).



I'm hoping someone can tell me if all of the /etc/system parameters can
be set with sysctl on Linux and if their names are the same.  Here are
my
current Solaris /etc/system parameters:

set msgsys:msginfo_msgmap=512
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmax=8192
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=65536
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=256
set msgsys:msginfo_msgssz=16
set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=512
set msgsys:msginfo_msgseg=8192

set semsys:seminfo_semmap=64
set semsys:seminfo_semmni=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmns=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=300
set semsys:seminfo_semopm=32
set semsys:seminfo_semume=64

set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=536870912
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=1
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=220
set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=100

Any help is appreciated.
--Kathy
___
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] Flashbackup

[Fredrik]

Hi 

how do you protect the raw disk partion given to the cash for flashbackup 
(VxFS) not to be taken by another system (administrator)

Regards//

Fredrik Dahlberg  - Backupadministrator
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 65
Tel mob: +46 (0)733-31 53 29
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Paul Keating]

Title: Message



It's 
not fishyyour problem is the demultiplexing.no 
question.

you 
want to be reading one "virtual tape" and writing to one "physical 
tape".when you're finished reading that virtual tape, you load another and 
keep going.

In 
your case, you're loading a virtual tape, reading 256k, skipping ahead on the 
disk abit, reading another 256k, skipping ahead somemore, etc, etc, and then 
reassembling that and writing it to a tape...in the mean time, you probably have 
another job that's jumping in between those 256k blocks and trying to get some 
different blocks to write to a different tape...I believe the docs even warn 
that this will cause poor duplication performance.

instead of shooting from VTL to tape, you' have several jobspulling 
little bits from all over your VTL, then reassembling them and trying to write 
them to different tapes..a NIGHTMARE wrt performance.

Either 
use the "preserve multiplexing" option, which will do a straight dupe, without 
all the sourcing and assemblingor..create more virtual drives on the 
VTL, and don't multiplex you original backups

for 
example:
if you 
have 4 virtual drives, and MPX=4, instead create 16 virtual drives, and turn MPX 
off.

you're 
actually having to read 100MB/s off the VTL to get enough data to assemble into 
a 11MB/s stream for your tapes.

Paul


-- 

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle, 
  StuartSent: September 18, 2006 9:08 PMTo: 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 
  throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs
  
  ALL,
  
  we have an issue with 
  LTO-3 drive performance. 
  
  Our environment is 
  set up as follows: 
  q 
  a single master server running 
  Solaris
  q 
  4 Linux media 
  servers
  q 
  4 Windows media 
  servers
  q 
  ADIC i-2000 tape library with 16 LTO-3 
  drives that are shared on a SAN to all of the media servers with 
  SSO
  q 
  five NetApp VTLs that have multiple 
  virtual libraries on each one. Each media server is connected to two 
  virtual libraries (also over the SAN)
  
  We do all of our 
  backups to the VTLs and are using Vault to make duplicate copies to the 
  physical tapes. We are multiplexing to the VTLs and then 
  de-multiplexing to the physical tapes.
  
  We are currently 
  seeing only about 11MB/sec going out to the physical tapes. However, our 
  read performance on the dups is averaging about 80  100+ MB/sec from the 
  VTLs.
  
  Is anyone else doing 
  something like this and are you getting better throughput to your physical 
  tapes using Vault?
  
  Symantec told us 
  today that doing a single-stream to the physical LTO-3 drives was only going 
  to do about 8 or 9MB/sec and we should Preserve Multiplexing for the output 
  in order to get better throughput to the physical 
  tapes.
  
  Does this sound 
  right? Its sounding kind of fishy to me. We have our 
  buffers set as follows:
  
  NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS: 
  128
  
  SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS: 
  262144
  
  
  
  thanks
  
  --stuart


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 maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

[Bobby Williams]

The biggest drawback to using NetBackup for VMWare is the license.  You have to 
have a license for the VMWare box and all of the Virtual systems on it.

You could use the VMWare backup utility to back up to a NFS mounted drive and 
put the data on a system that is being backed up the NetBackup.

Bobby.


From: Hampus Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/09/19 Tue AM 08:16:48 EDT
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

Hi all,

 

Any one running Vmware against netbackup?

We have a new HP blade system which will run Vmware, and I wonder how I can
back this up to netbackup? Our blade guys tell me that vmware comes with its
own backup solution that is preferred to use.

 

Please advice in what is the best way to handle backups of vmware system.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 




Bobby Williams
2205 Peterson Drive
Chattanooga, TN  37421 

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

[Paul Keating]

Title: Message



we 
back them up as if they were hardware clients.

boot 
them up, install NBU client and back it up as if it was a normal 
server.

we 
have "base images" with NBU pre installed, so if we lose a hostinstance we 
can just start a new instance, do a full restore, overwriting all files, reboot 
and it's back up.


Paul

-- 

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hampus 
  LindSent: September 19, 2006 8:17 AMTo: 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup 
  and VmWare..
  
  Hi all,
  
  Any one running Vmware against 
  netbackup?
  We have a new HP blade system 
  which will run Vmware, and I wonder how I can back this up to netbackup? Our 
  blade guys tell me that vmware comes with its own backup solution that is 
  preferred to use.
  
  Please advice in what is the best 
  way to handle backups of vmware system.
  
  Thanks and 
  regards,
  
  Hampus 
  LindRikspolisstyrelsenNational Police BoardTel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 
  99 43Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  


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 maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

[Koster, Phil]

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_backup_guide.pdf#search=%22VMWare%20back%20up%20guide%22

http://www.vmware.com/pdf/vi3_vm_backup.pdf#search=%22VMWare%20backup%20guide%22


Phil Koster
Network Administrator
City of Grand Rapids
Direct: 616-456-3136
Helpdesk: 
456-3999


From: Hampus Lind 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 
8:17 AMTo: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: 
[Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..



Hi all,

Any one running Vmware against 
netbackup?
We have a new HP blade system which 
will run Vmware, and I wonder how I can back this up to netbackup? Our blade 
guys tell me that vmware comes with its own backup solution that is preferred to 
use.

Please advice in what is the best 
way to handle backups of vmware system.

Thanks and 
regards,

Hampus 
LindRikspolisstyrelsenNational Police BoardTel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 
99 43Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] bpstart_notify issue

[avi . barsheshet]

Hi

I'm trying to run a VB script from the bpstart_notify file.
I want that the job will fail if the script exit with status that is not
zero.
Is it possible ?
How can I insure that the job will not run the backup if the VB script did
not finished successfully ?

Avi Barsheshet
Hapoalim Bank
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



 
This message and its attachments are designated solely for the addressee. 
They contain information that may be privileged and protected by law.
Duplication or distribution of this information in any manner is prohibited by 
law.
If you receive this document or information and it is not addressed to you, it 
must be 
deleted from your system forthwith. 
In such case, kindly inform us of this event as soon as practicable..



___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Dyck, Jonathan]

Title: Message




Agreed. Coming from an environment where we are "afraid" of 
multiplexing everything due to those image's importability (or lack thereof), 
the fact that we cannot demux quick enough has us handcuffed a 
little.

Just a 
question, what's the rationale on mpx'ing to your VTL's?

Cheers,
Jon


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul 
KeatingSent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:50 AMTo: 
Liddle, Stuart; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: Re: 
[Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

It's 
not fishyyour problem is the demultiplexing.no 
question.

you 
want to be reading one "virtual tape" and writing to one "physical 
tape".when you're finished reading that virtual tape, you load another and 
keep going.

In 
your case, you're loading a virtual tape, reading 256k, skipping ahead on the 
disk abit, reading another 256k, skipping ahead somemore, etc, etc, and then 
reassembling that and writing it to a tape...in the mean time, you probably have 
another job that's jumping in between those 256k blocks and trying to get some 
different blocks to write to a different tape...I believe the docs even warn 
that this will cause poor duplication performance.

instead of shooting from VTL to tape, you' have several jobspulling 
little bits from all over your VTL, then reassembling them and trying to write 
them to different tapes..a NIGHTMARE wrt performance.

Either 
use the "preserve multiplexing" option, which will do a straight dupe, without 
all the sourcing and assemblingor..create more virtual drives on the 
VTL, and don't multiplex you original backups

for 
example:
if you 
have 4 virtual drives, and MPX=4, instead create 16 virtual drives, and turn MPX 
off.

you're 
actually having to read 100MB/s off the VTL to get enough data to assemble into 
a 11MB/s stream for your tapes.

Paul


-- 

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle, 
  StuartSent: September 18, 2006 9:08 PMTo: 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 
  throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs
  
  ALL,
  
  we have an issue with 
  LTO-3 drive performance. 
  
  Our environment is 
  set up as follows: 
  q 
  a single master server running 
  Solaris
  q 
  4 Linux media 
  servers
  q 
  4 Windows media 
  servers
  q 
  ADIC i-2000 tape library with 16 LTO-3 
  drives that are shared on a SAN to all of the media servers with 
  SSO
  q 
  five NetApp VTLs that have multiple 
  virtual libraries on each one. Each media server is connected to two 
  virtual libraries (also over the SAN)
  
  We do all of our 
  backups to the VTLs and are using Vault to make duplicate copies to the 
  physical tapes. We are multiplexing to the VTLs and then 
  de-multiplexing to the physical tapes.
  
  We are currently 
  seeing only about 11MB/sec going out to the physical tapes. However, our 
  read performance on the dups is averaging about 80  100+ MB/sec from the 
  VTLs.
  
  Is anyone else doing 
  something like this and are you getting better throughput to your physical 
  tapes using Vault?
  
  Symantec told us 
  today that doing a single-stream to the physical LTO-3 drives was only going 
  to do about 8 or 9MB/sec and we should Preserve Multiplexing for the output 
  in order to get better throughput to the physical 
  tapes.
  
  Does this sound 
  right? Its sounding kind of fishy to me. We have our 
  buffers set as follows:
  
  NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS: 
  128
  
  SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS: 
  262144
  
  
  
  thanks
  
  --stuart

 This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail that you have done so. Thank you. 
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

[Hampus Lind]

Title: Message









Thanks all,



Do run open file option for
these clients? Can you get system_state_info as well?







Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Paul Keating
Skickat: den 19 september 2006
14:55
Till:
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup
and VmWare..





we
back them up as if they were hardware clients.











boot
them up, install NBU client and back it up as if it was a normal server.











we
have base images with NBU pre installed, so if we lose a
hostinstance we can just start a new instance, do a full restore,
overwriting all files, reboot and it's back up.

















Paul









-- 



-Original Message-
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hampus Lind
Sent: September 19, 2006 8:17 AM
To:
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup
and VmWare..

Hi all,



Any one running Vmware
against netbackup?

We have a new HP blade
system which will run Vmware, and I wonder how I can back this up to netbackup?
Our blade guys tell me that vmware comes with its own backup solution that is
preferred to use.



Please advice in what is
the best way to handle backups of vmware system.



Thanks and regards,



Hampus
Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]










___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

[bob944]

 My backup enterprise currently consists of a Solaris 9 Sun V240 master
 and 3 Sun X4200 RHEL3 Linux Media Servers running NB51MP5.
 
 I've been getting the following messages for backups and duplications
 to storage units on my Linux media servers:
 
problems encountered during setup of shared memory (89)
 
 I use disk storage units and a mixed LTO2/LTO3 library.
 
 I've attempted to setup my Linux media servers similar to my Solaris 9
 master by using the same NUMBER/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS files in
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config.  But on my Solaris 9 master, I also
 had /etc/system settings for msgsys, semsys, and shmsys values.

Why would you assume that tuning parameters for one OS and hardware
platform were correct for a different OS on a different hardware
platform?

And the odds are reasonable that the master's parameters weren't
well-chosen in the first place.

Suggest
a) apply the Linux parameter information from a later posting (Lightner)
b) remove the touch files and let the defaults get backups working
c) if you're not satisfied with the backup AND RESTORE performance with
the defaults, read the Backup Planning and Performance Tuning Guide and
tune your media server properly.  OPPs (Other Peoples' Parameters, not
the Canadian version), derived with unknown methodology on likely
different software, different hardware and different configurations,
have even less value than your Sol9 box's parameters.


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] which antivirus software one is the best if the system is a media server

[Asiye Yiğit]

Title: Message




Hi 
All,
There 
is a media server which is win 2003. We have licenses for McAfee, Norton,and eTrust . Which one do you 
recommend?

Best 
Regards,

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] which antivirus software one is the best if the systemis a media server

[Spearman, David]

Title: Message



I 
won't recommend any of them, but we use McAfee with no problems. We do exclude 
on access scanning in the veritas folder of course.

Davud 
Spearman
County 
of Henrico, Va. 

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Asiye 
  YigitSent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:09 AMTo: 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] which 
  antivirus software one is the best if the systemis a media 
  server
  
  Hi 
  All,
  There is a media server which is win 2003. We have licenses for 
  McAfee, Norton,and eTrust . Which one do you 
  recommend?
  
  Best 
  Regards,
  
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

[Scott Jacobson]

Bobby,

Unfortunately what you've said about VMWare licensing is not correct. Don't feel bad, there are "Symantec" sales folks who also don't understand it.

Here is how the licencing works:

With one VMWare ESX Server and:

1. Five Windows Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on each oneyou claim or account for the use of "one" Windows client license.
2. Five Linux Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on each oneyou claim or account for the use of "one"Linux client license.
3. FiveNetWare Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on each oneyou claim or account for the use of "one"NetWare client license.

If you alsouse the Traditional Method option to backup theESX Server itself, you would claim or account for the use ofone moreLinux client license.

For the above, four licenses would be used in total.

Regards,
Scott Bobby Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/19/2006 6:55 AM The biggest drawback to using NetBackup for VMWare is the license. You have to have a license for the VMWare box and all of the Virtual systems on it.You could use the VMWare backup utility to back up to a NFS mounted drive and put the data on a system that is being backed up the NetBackup.Bobby.From: "Hampus Lind" [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: 2006/09/19 Tue AM 08:16:48 EDTTo: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..Hi all,Any one running Vmware against netbackup?We have a new HP blade system which will run Vmware, and I wonder how I canback this up to netbackup? Our blade guys tell me that vmware comes with itsown backup solution that is preferred to use.Please advice in what is the best way to handle backups o!
f vmware system.Thanks and regards,Hampus LindRikspolisstyrelsenNational Police BoardTel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Bobby Williams2205 Peterson DriveChattanooga, TN 37421 ___Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduhttp://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] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

[Nardello, John]

Technote talking about Linux kernel tuning recommendations:
http://support.veritas.com/docs/263755 

A little old but I doubt the variables have changed any. 

- John Nardello

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kathryn
Hemness
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:59 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

Greetings,

My backup enterprise currently consists of a Solaris 9 Sun V240 master
and 3 Sun X4200 RHEL3 Linux Media Servers running NB51MP5.

I've been getting the following messages for backups and duplications
to storage units on my Linux media servers:

   problems encountered during setup of shared memory (89)

I use disk storage units and a mixed LTO2/LTO3 library.

I've attempted to setup my Linux media servers similar to my Solaris 9
master by using the same NUMBER/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS files in
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/config.  But on my Solaris 9 master, I also
had /etc/system settings for msgsys, semsys, and shmsys values.

I haven't been able to find anything about needing similar
/etc/system tuning on Linux (I believe the /etc/system equivalents are
set
via the /etc/sysctl.conf file).

I'm hoping someone can tell me if all of the /etc/system parameters can
be set with sysctl on Linux and if their names are the same.  Here are
my
current Solaris /etc/system parameters:

set msgsys:msginfo_msgmap=512
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmax=8192
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=65536
set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=256
set msgsys:msginfo_msgssz=16
set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=512
set msgsys:msginfo_msgseg=8192

set semsys:seminfo_semmap=64
set semsys:seminfo_semmni=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmns=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=1024
set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=300
set semsys:seminfo_semopm=32
set semsys:seminfo_semume=64

set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=536870912
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=1
set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=220
set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=100

Any help is appreciated.
--Kathy
___
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] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

[Bobby Williams]

That is not what I infer from the support matrix (5.X)
http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_Enterprise_Server/263839.pdf

It indicates that the VM host needs a license and each client needs a license.

If you have something that shows this better than the support matrix, please 
let us know.  We are way over purchasing licenses if you are correct.

Bobby.






From: Scott Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/09/19 Tue AM 11:22:12 EDT
To: Bobby Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu, 
Hampus Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

Bobby,
 
Unfortunately what you've said about VMWare licensing is not correct. 
Don't feel bad, there are Symantec sales folks who also don't
understand it.
 
Here is how the licencing works:
 
With one VMWare ESX Server and:
 
1. Five Windows Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on
each one you claim or account for the use of one Windows client
license.
2. Five Linux Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on
each one you claim or account for the use of one Linux client
license.
3. Five NetWare Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on
each one you claim or account for the use of one NetWare client
license.
 
If you also use the Traditional Method option to backup the ESX Server
itself, you would claim or account for the use of one more Linux client
license.
 
For the above, four licenses would be used in total.
 
Regards,
Scott

 Bobby Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/19/2006 6:55 AM 
The biggest drawback to using NetBackup for VMWare is the license.  You
have to have a license for the VMWare box and all of the Virtual systems
on it.

You could use the VMWare backup utility to back up to a NFS mounted
drive and put the data on a system that is being backed up the
NetBackup.

Bobby.


From: Hampus Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/09/19 Tue AM 08:16:48 EDT
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

Hi all,



Any one running Vmware against netbackup?

We have a new HP blade system which will run Vmware, and I wonder how I
can
back this up to netbackup? Our blade guys tell me that vmware comes
with its
own backup solution that is preferred to use.



Please advice in what is the best way to handle backups of vmware
system.



Thanks and regards,



Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 






Bobby Williams
2205 Peterson Drive
Chattanooga, TN  37421 

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu 
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Bobby Williams
2205 Peterson Drive
Chattanooga, TN  37421 

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Paul Keating]

Title: Message



My 
thought's exactly JR.

I'm 
thinking folks either have VTLs where they are licensing from the vendor on a 
"per virtual drive" basis, OR, they are licensing Netbackup on a (old) per 
drive, rather than (new) per TB of usable disk basis, so want to avoid the 
licensing cost of adding more virtual drives..that was on of my primary 
criteria in selecting a VTLI want to be able to create as many virtual 
drives as I want.

I 
currently have 20 physical drives, and run various multiplex levels for 
different STUs, depending on the type of backup, in order to maintain sufficient 
data flow to stream the drives, but when the VTL comes into play, I want MPX=1, 
so I'll be configuring upwards of 20 virtual drives per media 
server.

Paul


-- 

  
  -Original Message-From: Dyck, Jonathan 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 19, 2006 10:09 
  AMTo: Paul Keating; Liddle, Stuart; 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: RE: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 
  throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs
  
  Agreed. Coming from an environment where we are "afraid" of 
  multiplexing everything due to those image's importability (or lack thereof), 
  the fact that we cannot demux quick enough has us handcuffed a 
  little.
  
  Just 
  a question, what's the rationale on mpx'ing to your VTL's?
  
  Cheers,
  Jon


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 maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

[Paul Keating]

Title: Message



yes 
and yes.

Paul


-- 

  
  -Original Message-From: Hampus Lind 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 19, 2006 10:47 
  AMTo: Paul Keating; 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: SV: [Veritas-bu] 
  Netbackup and VmWare..
  
  Thanks 
  all,
  
  Do run open file 
  option for these clients? Can you get system_state_info as 
  well?
  
  
  
  Hampus 
  LindRikspolisstyrelsenNational Police BoardTel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 
  99 43Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  -Ursprungligt 
  meddelande-Från: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] För Paul KeatingSkickat: den 19 september 2006 
  14:55Till: 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduÄmne: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and 
  VmWare..
  
  
  we 
  back them up as if they were hardware clients.
  
  
  
  boot 
  them up, install NBU client and back it up as if it was a normal 
  server.
  
  
  
  we 
  have "base images" with NBU pre installed, so if we lose a hostinstance 
  we can just start a new instance, do a full restore, overwriting all files, 
  reboot and it's back up.
  
  
  
  
  
  Paul
  
  
  -- 
  
-Original 
Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hampus LindSent: September 19, 2006 8:17 
AMTo: 
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and 
VmWare..
Hi all,

Any one running 
Vmware against netbackup?
We have a new HP 
blade system which will run Vmware, and I wonder how I can back this up to 
netbackup? Our blade guys tell me that vmware comes with its own backup 
solution that is preferred to use.

Please advice in what 
is the best way to handle backups of vmware system.

Thanks and 
regards,

Hampus 
LindRikspolisstyrelsenNational Police BoardTel dir: +46 (0)8 - 
401 99 43Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


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 con
fidentielle.
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 maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

[Paul Keating]

We were as Scott.

Each client *TYPE* needs a license

As Scott said, if you have 5 NetWare, 5 Windows and 5 Linux, you need a
license per OS type
I didn't think it was limited to 5 though...I was under the impression
for a given host, you need one license for the host, then 1 license PER
client TYPE.

Ie, a vmware ESX host running linux with 10 linux VMs running would be 2
linux licenses.

A vmware ESX host running linux with 10 windows VMs would be 1 linux and
1 windows, etc,

Paul

-- 


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
 Of Bobby Williams
 Sent: September 19, 2006 11:43 AM
 To: Scott Jacobson; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; Hampus Lind
 Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing
 
 
 That is not what I infer from the support matrix (5.X)
 http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_
 Enterprise_Server/263839.pdf
 
 It indicates that the VM host needs a license and each client 
 needs a license.
 
 If you have something that shows this better than the support 
 matrix, please let us know.  We are way over purchasing 
 licenses if you are correct.
 
 Bobby.
 
 
 
 
 

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 maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

[Dyck, Jonathan]

FYI (here's what I got straight from the monkey's mouth... ;-)

Maybe this clears something up?  Haven't been following this thread
really...

Cheers,
J _D_

{Paul, I shed the JR when the old man retired ;)



==
MULTIPLE DOMAIN OR VIRTUAL MACHINE SYSTEMS

NetBackup components (servers, clients, and database agents) for UNIX,
Windows, NetWare, and Linux are each licensed

once per physical machine. If a physical machine runs multiple Operating
Systems and Databases, then the physical machine

requires one NetBackup component for each Operating System and Database
type. Please note that this policy supersedes

previous licensing policies that were communicated before the date of
this document.

Exception: NetBackup Clients installed on IBM zSeries (OS/390) should be
licensed once per virtual machine. This is an

exception to the standard NetBackup policy of licensing clients once per
physical machine.
 ==



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Keating
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:57 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

We were as Scott.

Each client *TYPE* needs a license

As Scott said, if you have 5 NetWare, 5 Windows and 5 Linux, you need a
license per OS type
I didn't think it was limited to 5 though...I was under the impression
for a given host, you need one license for the host, then 1 license PER
client TYPE.

Ie, a vmware ESX host running linux with 10 linux VMs running would be 2
linux licenses.

A vmware ESX host running linux with 10 windows VMs would be 1 linux and
1 windows, etc,

Paul

-- 


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bobby 
 Williams
 Sent: September 19, 2006 11:43 AM
 To: Scott Jacobson; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; Hampus Lind
 Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing
 
 
 That is not what I infer from the support matrix (5.X) 
 http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_
 Enterprise_Server/263839.pdf
 
 It indicates that the VM host needs a license and each client needs a 
 license.
 
 If you have something that shows this better than the support matrix, 
 please let us know.  We are way over purchasing licenses if you are 
 correct.
 
 Bobby.
 
 
 
 

 
 This message may contain privileged and/or confidential information.  If 
you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you 
may not use, copy, disseminate or distribute it; do not open any attachments, 
delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by e-mail 
that you have done so.  Thank you.

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

[Scott Jacobson]

Paul and Bobby

That is correct, thanks for the clarification. My examples of "5", were just that, examples.

Scott "Paul Keating" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/19/2006 9:56 AM We were as Scott.Each client *TYPE* needs a licenseAs Scott said, if you have 5 NetWare, 5 Windows and 5 Linux, you need alicense per OS typeI didn't think it was limited to 5 though...I was under the impressionfor a given host, you need one license for the host, then 1 license PERclient TYPE.Ie, a vmware ESX host running linux with 10 linux VMs running would be 2linux licenses.A vmware ESX host running linux with 10 windows VMs would be 1 linux and1 windows, etc,Paul--  -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf  Of Bobby Williams Sent: September 19, 2006 11:43 AM To: Scott Jacobson; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; Hampus Lind Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing   That is not what I "infer" from the support matrix (5.X) http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_ Enterprise_Server/263839.pdf  It indicates that the VM host needs a license and each client  needs a license.  If you have something that shows this better than the support  matrix, please let us know. We are way over purchasing  licenses if you are correct.  Bobby. ___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Marianu, Jonathan]

The use of any multiplexing has an adverse effect on duplication
throughput.

To maximize duplication performance either turn MPX Off or set it to a
high number (as much as 32).

Setting MPX to 1 (off) provides the best duplication performance and
restore performance but if there are not enough front end client facing
drives on the media server the backup streams will queue up behind slow
clients. 

If you can not turn MPX off, setting MPX to a high number provides
better throughput during duplication than a lower number because there
are more bptm processes reading from the tape. If it is set lower, like
8, only 8 processes can read from the tape; then the tape has to rewind
and then 8 more processes read, then it rewinds and it keeps doing this
until all images are finally duplicated. The tradeoff is that a higher
MPX setting means that a restore will take longer.

It is important to note that MPX is set during the creation of copy 1 of
the image.


Here is a method for visualizing vault duplication from VTL to tape on
Solaris.
I find this helps our new netbackup admins to understand duplication
better.

Start duplication
Identify the two PARENT bptm processes involved in the duplication.
In two separate windows run truss -p against each process id.
Place the window monitoring the reading bptm process on top of the
writing window.
Now you can see a visual representation of the images being read fromm
tape and written to tape.

__
Jonathan Marianu (mah ree ah' nu)

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Liddle, Stuart]

Title: Message








I think we are licensed per TB on the VTL.not
per drive. 



Our rationale in doing the multiplexing to
the VTL was to increase throughput to the VTL for backups. We CAN
increase the number of virtual drives instead and then do single streams to the
VTL and avoid the de-multiplexing during the duplication step.



However, we are seeing lightning-fast read
speeds off of the VTL regardless of the fact that it is multiplexed (around
130MB/sec).



So, Im still concerned about the
speed with which we write out to the physical tapes..not sure where the
bottleneck isbut there definitely is a bottleneck.











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006
8:49 AM
To:
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3
throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs







My thought's exactly JR.











I'm thinking folks either have VTLs
where they are licensing from the vendor on a per virtual drive
basis, OR, they are licensing Netbackup on a (old) per drive, rather than (new)
per TB of usable disk basis, so want to avoid the licensing cost of adding more
virtual drives..that was on of my primary criteria in selecting a VTLI
want to be able to create as many virtual drives as I want.











I currently have 20 physical drives, and
run various multiplex levels for different STUs, depending on the type of
backup, in order to maintain sufficient data flow to stream the drives, but
when the VTL comes into play, I want MPX=1, so I'll be configuring upwards of
20 virtual drives per media server.











Paul















-- 



-Original Message-
From: Dyck, Jonathan
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: September 19, 2006 10:09 AM
To: Paul Keating; Liddle, Stuart;
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] LTO3
throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs





Agreed. Coming from an environment
where we are afraid of multiplexing everything due to those image's
importability (or lack thereof), the fact that we cannot demux quick enough has
us handcuffed a little.











Just a question, what's the rationale on
mpx'ing to your VTL's?











Cheers,





Jon












___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

[Kathryn Hemness]

Thanks Dave,

I do have that too...I just short-cutted my explanation of the files
in my /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config directory.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Clooney, David wrote:

 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:56:05 +0100
 From: Clooney, David [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Kathryn Hemness [EMAIL PROTECTED],
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

  Not answering you question but if you media server is writing to disk
 you might want to check and implement

 SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK

 Dave





 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kathryn
 Hemness
 Sent: 18 September 2006 23:59
 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 Subject: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

 Greetings,

 My backup enterprise currently consists of a Solaris 9 Sun V240 master
 and 3 Sun X4200 RHEL3 Linux Media Servers running NB51MP5.

 I've been getting the following messages for backups and duplications to
 storage units on my Linux media servers:

problems encountered during setup of shared memory (89)

 I use disk storage units and a mixed LTO2/LTO3 library.

 I've attempted to setup my Linux media servers similar to my Solaris 9
 master by using the same NUMBER/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS files in
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config.  But on my Solaris 9 master, I also had
 /etc/system settings for msgsys, semsys, and shmsys values.

 I haven't been able to find anything about needing similar /etc/system
 tuning on Linux (I believe the /etc/system equivalents are set via the
 /etc/sysctl.conf file).

 I'm hoping someone can tell me if all of the /etc/system parameters can
 be set with sysctl on Linux and if their names are the same.  Here are
 my current Solaris /etc/system parameters:

 set msgsys:msginfo_msgmap=512
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgmax=8192
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=65536
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=256
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgssz=16
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=512
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgseg=8192

 set semsys:seminfo_semmap=64
 set semsys:seminfo_semmni=1024
 set semsys:seminfo_semmns=1024
 set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=1024
 set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=300
 set semsys:seminfo_semopm=32
 set semsys:seminfo_semume=64

 set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=536870912
 set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=1
 set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=220
 set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=100

 Any help is appreciated.
 --Kathy
 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu



 Notice to recipient:
 The information in this internet e-mail and any attachments is confidential 
 and may be privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are 
 not the intended addressee please notify the sender immediately by telephone. 
 If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution 
 or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited 
 and may be unlawful.

 When addressed to external clients any opinions or advice contained in this 
 internet e-mail are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in any 
 applicable governing terms of business or client engagement letter issued by 
 the pertinent Bank of America group entity.

 If this email originates from the U.K. please note that Bank of America, 
 N.A., London Branch and Banc of America Securities Limited are authorised and 
 regulated by the Financial Services Authority.



--Kathy

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Peter DrakeUnderkoffler]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

You then need to test each component individually if you don't know
where your bottleneck lives.  There are many ways to test tape drive throughput
from a media server.  Simple dd or tar commands and all the way up to bpbkar.
When you quote your read speeds of 130mb/sec, is that during a restore
process through netbackup?  If so and there is multiplexing, make sure
your restore test is big enough to get a valid sample size.

Thanks
Peter

Peter DrakeUnderkoffler
Xinupro, LLC
617-834-2352



Liddle, Stuart wrote:
 I think we are licensed per TB on the VTL?.not per drive. 
 
  
 
 Our rationale in doing the multiplexing to the VTL was to increase
 throughput to the VTL for backups.  We CAN increase the number of
 virtual drives instead and then do single streams to the VTL and avoid
 the de-multiplexing during the duplication step.
 
  
 
 However, we are seeing lightning-fast read speeds off of the VTL
 regardless of the fact that it is multiplexed (around 130MB/sec).
 
  
 
 So, I?m still concerned about the speed with which we write out to the
 physical tapes?..not sure where the bottleneck is?but there definitely
 is a bottleneck.
 
  
 
 
 
 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Paul
 Keating
 *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:49 AM
 *To:* veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs
 
  
 
 My thought's exactly JR.
 
  
 
 I'm thinking folks either have VTLs where they are licensing from the
 vendor on a per virtual drive basis, OR, they are licensing Netbackup
 on a (old) per drive, rather than (new) per TB of usable disk basis, so
 want to avoid the licensing cost of adding more virtual drives..that
 was on of my primary criteria in selecting a VTLI want to be able to
 create as many virtual drives as I want.
 
  
 
 I currently have 20 physical drives, and run various multiplex levels
 for different STUs, depending on the type of backup, in order to
 maintain sufficient data flow to stream the drives, but when the VTL
 comes into play, I want MPX=1, so I'll be configuring upwards of 20
 virtual drives per media server.
 
  
 
 Paul
 
  
 
  
 
 -- 
 
 -Original Message-
 *From:* Dyck, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 *Sent:* September 19, 2006 10:09 AM
 *To:* Paul Keating; Liddle, Stuart; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 *Subject:* RE: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs
 
 Agreed.  Coming from an environment where we are afraid of
 multiplexing everything due to those image's importability (or lack
 thereof), the fact that we cannot demux quick enough has us
 handcuffed a little.
 
  
 
 Just a question, what's the rationale on mpx'ing to your VTL's?
 
  
 
 Cheers,
 
 Jon
 
 
 
 
 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFECQ1l+lekZRM55oRAni8AJ91fyyqTD2CrIZLLWRMfeVPu0NVNACdFaHD
dgliOvTDWXsWlH8eXzhVg3M=
=RJAg
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] which antivirus software one is the best if the systemis a media server

[Koster, Phil]

Title: Message



We exclude all the Net Backup Processes (McAfee 8 on the 
master/media). And likewise, no problems. If you fail to make your 
exclusions though..


Phil Koster
Network Administrator
City of Grand Rapids
Direct: 616-456-3136
Helpdesk: 
456-3999


From: Spearman, David 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 
11:19 AMTo: Asiye Yigit; 
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: Re: [Veritas-bu] which 
antivirus software one is the best if the systemis a media 
server


I 
won't recommend any of them, but we use McAfee with no problems. We do exclude 
on access scanning in the veritas folder of course.

Davud 
Spearman
County 
of Henrico, Va. 

  
  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Asiye 
  YigitSent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:09 AMTo: 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: [Veritas-bu] which 
  antivirus software one is the best if the systemis a media 
  server
  
  Hi 
  All,
  There is a media server which is win 2003. We have licenses for 
  McAfee, Norton,and eTrust . Which one do you 
  recommend?
  
  Best 
  Regards,
  
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

[Jim Horalek]

I believe Scott is correct. There were a few policy changes since the
product 6.0 was delivered.
Unfortunately they are not well documented. Vmware was a special case. 
Once license of each type to be backed up should all you need.
However, the Symantec/Veritas License desk has the final say.(Tech support
can answer you question also)

Jim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bobby
Williams
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:43 AM
To: Scott Jacobson; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; Hampus Lind
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing


That is not what I infer from the support matrix (5.X)
http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_Enterprise_Ser
ver/263839.pdf

It indicates that the VM host needs a license and each client needs a
license.

If you have something that shows this better than the support matrix, please
let us know.  We are way over purchasing licenses if you are correct.

Bobby.






From: Scott Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/09/19 Tue AM 11:22:12 EDT
To: Bobby Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu, 
Hampus Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

Bobby,
 
Unfortunately what you've said about VMWare licensing is not correct. 
Don't feel bad, there are Symantec sales folks who also don't
understand it.
 
Here is how the licencing works:
 
With one VMWare ESX Server and:
 
1. Five Windows Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on
each one you claim or account for the use of one Windows client
license.
2. Five Linux Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on
each one you claim or account for the use of one Linux client
license.
3. Five NetWare Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on
each one you claim or account for the use of one NetWare client
license.
 
If you also use the Traditional Method option to backup the ESX Server
itself, you would claim or account for the use of one more Linux client
license.
 
For the above, four licenses would be used in total.
 
Regards,
Scott

 Bobby Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/19/2006 6:55 AM 
The biggest drawback to using NetBackup for VMWare is the license.  You
have to have a license for the VMWare box and all of the Virtual systems
on it.

You could use the VMWare backup utility to back up to a NFS mounted
drive and put the data on a system that is being backed up the
NetBackup.

Bobby.


From: Hampus Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/09/19 Tue AM 08:16:48 EDT
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

Hi all,



Any one running Vmware against netbackup?

We have a new HP blade system which will run Vmware, and I wonder how I
can
back this up to netbackup? Our blade guys tell me that vmware comes
with its
own backup solution that is preferred to use.



Please advice in what is the best way to handle backups of vmware
system.



Thanks and regards,



Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 






Bobby Williams
2205 Peterson Drive
Chattanooga, TN  37421 

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu 
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Bobby Williams
2205 Peterson Drive
Chattanooga, TN  37421 

___
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] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Justin Piszcz]

We are going to do some direct-to-tape performance testing, but it could
very well be that we just can't pump data out to the drives fast enough to
keep them spinning with a single-stream.

I've done many tests, to maximize the throughput to an LTO3 tape, you need 
at least 3 streams.

Three streams directly from RAM = 137MB/s, which is the max some companies 
have also gotten in their private testing labs.  One stream, even from RAM 
will only yield 30-50MB/s.

Justin.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Liddle, Stuart wrote:

 The read speeds are obtained from an average of all of the duplications that
 have been done over a 48 hour period.  If I go back 1 week, it turns out to
 be something like 80MB/sec average with peaks of 150MB/sec.

 We are going to do some direct-to-tape performance testing, but it could
 very well be that we just can't pump data out to the drives fast enough to
 keep them spinning with a single-stream.

 --stuart

 -Original Message-
 From: Peter DrakeUnderkoffler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 10:09 AM
 To: Liddle, Stuart
 Cc: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 You then need to test each component individually if you don't know
 where your bottleneck lives.  There are many ways to test tape drive
 throughput
 from a media server.  Simple dd or tar commands and all the way up to
 bpbkar.
 When you quote your read speeds of 130mb/sec, is that during a restore
 process through netbackup?  If so and there is multiplexing, make sure
 your restore test is big enough to get a valid sample size.

 Thanks
 Peter

 Peter DrakeUnderkoffler
 Xinupro, LLC
 617-834-2352



 Liddle, Stuart wrote:
 I think we are licensed per TB on the VTL?.not per drive.



 Our rationale in doing the multiplexing to the VTL was to increase
 throughput to the VTL for backups.  We CAN increase the number of
 virtual drives instead and then do single streams to the VTL and avoid
 the de-multiplexing during the duplication step.



 However, we are seeing lightning-fast read speeds off of the VTL
 regardless of the fact that it is multiplexed (around 130MB/sec).



 So, I?m still concerned about the speed with which we write out to the
 physical tapes?..not sure where the bottleneck is?but there definitely
 is a bottleneck.



 

 *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Paul
 Keating
 *Sent:* Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:49 AM
 *To:* veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs



 My thought's exactly JR.



 I'm thinking folks either have VTLs where they are licensing from the
 vendor on a per virtual drive basis, OR, they are licensing Netbackup
 on a (old) per drive, rather than (new) per TB of usable disk basis, so
 want to avoid the licensing cost of adding more virtual drives..that
 was on of my primary criteria in selecting a VTLI want to be able to
 create as many virtual drives as I want.



 I currently have 20 physical drives, and run various multiplex levels
 for different STUs, depending on the type of backup, in order to
 maintain sufficient data flow to stream the drives, but when the VTL
 comes into play, I want MPX=1, so I'll be configuring upwards of 20
 virtual drives per media server.



 Paul





 --

 -Original Message-
 *From:* Dyck, Jonathan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 *Sent:* September 19, 2006 10:09 AM
 *To:* Paul Keating; Liddle, Stuart; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 *Subject:* RE: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

 Agreed.  Coming from an environment where we are afraid of
 multiplexing everything due to those image's importability (or lack
 thereof), the fact that we cannot demux quick enough has us
 handcuffed a little.



 Just a question, what's the rationale on mpx'ing to your VTL's?



 Cheers,

 Jon


 

 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
 Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)

 iD8DBQFFECQ1l+lekZRM55oRAni8AJ91fyyqTD2CrIZLLWRMfeVPu0NVNACdFaHD
 dgliOvTDWXsWlH8eXzhVg3M=
 =RJAg
 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
 ___
 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] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Paul Keating]

Title: Message




Stuart, 

Yeah, 
you're right, you're reading off of the VTL at 130MB/s, but if you're reading 
from a multiplexed (virtual)tape, and your MPX=10, and you're DEmultiplexing 
during the dupe, then only 1/10th, or 10% , or ~13MB/s of that data is relevant 
to the image you're writing to tape, so your 
throughput to the tape would be ~ 13MB/s

Make 
sense?

In 
essense, if you have MPX=10 on your VTL, you need to read the data from VTL 10 
times faster than you're writing to tape.

if you 
"preserve multiplexing" or if you use MPX=1 (off), then your VTL read and tape 
write should be symmetrical.

with 
VTL and "virtual" drives, you can create 10 virtual drives and set MPX=1, or 
create 1 virtual drive with MPX=10, and get the same overall 
performancewithout the duplication hassle.


Paul
-- 

  
  -Original Message-From: Liddle, Stuart 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 19, 2006 12:27 
  PMTo: Paul Keating; 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: RE: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 
  throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs
  
  I think we are 
  licensed per TB on the VTL.not per drive. 
  
  Our rationale in 
  doing the multiplexing to the VTL was to increase throughput to the VTL for 
  backups. We CAN increase the number of virtual drives instead and then 
  do single streams to the VTL and avoid the de-multiplexing during the 
  duplication step.
  
  However, we are 
  seeing lightning-fast read speeds off of the VTL regardless of the fact that 
  it is multiplexed (around 130MB/sec).
  
  So, Im still 
  concerned about the speed with which we write out to the physical tapes..not 
  sure where the bottleneck isbut there definitely is a 
  bottleneck.


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 maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

[Koster, Phil]

 According to the latest OS compatibility matrix, Bobby is still right as it 
reads the same for NBU 6 and 5 as far as VMWare goes.  
http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_Server/278064.pdf#search=%22NetBackup%206%20Compatibility%20Matrix%22

I think ultimately it will come down to the answer each of us individually get 
from Symantec though. ;-)

Thanks.

Phil Koster
Network Administrator
City of Grand Rapids
Direct: 616-456-3136
Helpdesk: 456-3999

-Original Message-
From: Jim Horalek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 1:34 PM
To: 'Bobby Williams'; 'Scott Jacobson'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; 
'Hampus Lind'
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

I believe Scott is correct. There were a few policy changes since the product 
6.0 was delivered.
Unfortunately they are not well documented. Vmware was a special case. 
Once license of each type to be backed up should all you need.
However, the Symantec/Veritas License desk has the final say.(Tech support can 
answer you question also)

Jim

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bobby Williams
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:43 AM
To: Scott Jacobson; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; Hampus Lind
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing


That is not what I infer from the support matrix (5.X) 
http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_Enterprise_Ser
ver/263839.pdf

It indicates that the VM host needs a license and each client needs a license.

If you have something that shows this better than the support matrix, please 
let us know.  We are way over purchasing licenses if you are correct.

Bobby.






From: Scott Jacobson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/09/19 Tue AM 11:22:12 EDT
To: Bobby Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu, 
Hampus Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VMWare Licencing

Bobby,
 
Unfortunately what you've said about VMWare licensing is not correct. 
Don't feel bad, there are Symantec sales folks who also don't understand it.
 
Here is how the licencing works:
 
With one VMWare ESX Server and:
 
1. Five Windows Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on each one 
you claim or account for the use of one Windows client license.
2. Five Linux Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on each one 
you claim or account for the use of one Linux client license.
3. Five NetWare Guests and the NetBackup client software installed on each one 
you claim or account for the use of one NetWare client license.
 
If you also use the Traditional Method option to backup the ESX Server itself, 
you would claim or account for the use of one more Linux client license.
 
For the above, four licenses would be used in total.
 
Regards,
Scott

 Bobby Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/19/2006 6:55 AM 
The biggest drawback to using NetBackup for VMWare is the license.  You have to 
have a license for the VMWare box and all of the Virtual systems on it.

You could use the VMWare backup utility to back up to a NFS mounted drive and 
put the data on a system that is being backed up the NetBackup.

Bobby.


From: Hampus Lind [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/09/19 Tue AM 08:16:48 EDT
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup and VmWare..

Hi all,



Any one running Vmware against netbackup?

We have a new HP blade system which will run Vmware, and I wonder how I can 
back this up to netbackup? Our blade guys tell me that vmware comes with its 
own backup solution that is preferred to use.



Please advice in what is the best way to handle backups of vmware system.



Thanks and regards,



Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 






Bobby Williams
2205 Peterson Drive
Chattanooga, TN  37421 

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu 
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu


Bobby Williams
2205 Peterson Drive
Chattanooga, TN  37421 

___
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] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Liddle, Stuart]

Title: Message








OK.we have MPX=6 for the VTL, so it
looks like we would be getting about maybe 21MB/sec according to what you are
saying..right?











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006
10:38 AM
To:
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3
throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs













Stuart, 











Yeah, you're right, you're reading off
of the VTL at 130MB/s, but if you're reading from a multiplexed (virtual)tape,
and your MPX=10, and you're DEmultiplexing during the dupe, then only 1/10th,
or 10% , or ~13MB/s of that data is relevant to the image you're writing to
tape, so your throughput to the tape would be ~ 13MB/s











Make sense?











In essense, if you have MPX=10 on your
VTL, you need to read the data from VTL 10 times faster than you're writing to
tape.











if you preserve multiplexing
or if you use MPX=1 (off), then your VTL read and tape write should be
symmetrical.











with VTL and virtual drives,
you can create 10 virtual drives and set MPX=1, or create 1 virtual drive with
MPX=10, and get the same overall performancewithout the duplication hassle.

















Paul



-- 



-Original Message-
From: Liddle, Stuart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Sent: September 19, 2006 12:27 PM
To: Paul Keating;
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] LTO3
throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

I think we are licensed per TB on the
VTL.not per drive. 



Our rationale in doing the multiplexing to
the VTL was to increase throughput to the VTL for backups. We CAN
increase the number of virtual drives instead and then do single streams to the
VTL and avoid the de-multiplexing during the duplication step.



However, we are seeing lightning-fast read
speeds off of the VTL regardless of the fact that it is multiplexed (around
130MB/sec).



So, Im still concerned about the
speed with which we write out to the physical tapes..not sure where the
bottleneck isbut there definitely is a bottleneck.








___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

[Kathryn Hemness]

Greetings,

Thanks to all who respondedMost of the suggestions were helpful.

This is a good technote and I'm going to try adjusting my values.
Regarding bob944's comments, my Linux media servers ARE running
with default kernel parameters and I'm seeing shared memory errors.
The files in the /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config were recommended
for both Solaris and Linux.  It is for these reasons that I posted
my query.

I'm posting my current values for the parameters and indicating
the recommended minimal settings in parenthesis:

kernel.msgmnb = 16384 (65536)
kernel.msgmni = 16(256)
kernel.msgmax = 8192  (8192)


kernel.shmmni = 4096 (1024)
kernel.shmall = 2097152  (nothing indicated in document)
kernel.shmmax = 33554432 (16777216) - my value is already larger, so I'm 
keeping it.


kernel.sem = 25032000   32  128
(300 1024   32  1024)
   semmsl, semmns, semopm, semmni)

My Linux servers have 4GB of memory so I can always make upward adjustments.



On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Nardello, John wrote:

 Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:21:59 -0700
 From: Nardello, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Kathryn Hemness [EMAIL PROTECTED],
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

 Technote talking about Linux kernel tuning recommendations:
 http://support.veritas.com/docs/263755

 A little old but I doubt the variables have changed any.

 - John Nardello

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kathryn
 Hemness
 Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:59 PM
 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 Subject: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

 Greetings,

 My backup enterprise currently consists of a Solaris 9 Sun V240 master
 and 3 Sun X4200 RHEL3 Linux Media Servers running NB51MP5.

 I've been getting the following messages for backups and duplications
 to storage units on my Linux media servers:

problems encountered during setup of shared memory (89)

 I use disk storage units and a mixed LTO2/LTO3 library.

 I've attempted to setup my Linux media servers similar to my Solaris 9
 master by using the same NUMBER/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS files in
 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config.  But on my Solaris 9 master, I also
 had /etc/system settings for msgsys, semsys, and shmsys values.

 I haven't been able to find anything about needing similar
 /etc/system tuning on Linux (I believe the /etc/system equivalents are
 set
 via the /etc/sysctl.conf file).

 I'm hoping someone can tell me if all of the /etc/system parameters can
 be set with sysctl on Linux and if their names are the same.  Here are
 my
 current Solaris /etc/system parameters:

 set msgsys:msginfo_msgmap=512
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgmax=8192
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=65536
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=256
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgssz=16
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=512
 set msgsys:msginfo_msgseg=8192

 set semsys:seminfo_semmap=64
 set semsys:seminfo_semmni=1024
 set semsys:seminfo_semmns=1024
 set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=1024
 set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=300
 set semsys:seminfo_semopm=32
 set semsys:seminfo_semume=64

 set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=536870912
 set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=1
 set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=220
 set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=100

 Any help is appreciated.
 --Kathy
 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu



--Kathy

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Bppllist columns

[David Rock]

* Clooney, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-19 11:53]:
 Hi All
 
 Does anyone have the columns for 
 
 bppllist $policy 
 
 Basically trying to put something together based on policy type, trying to 
 get the columns specifically for the INFO section below.
 
 Eg.
 
 CLASS croyvtsms_oracle *NULL* 0 50 169200 *NULL*
 NAMES
 INFO 0 0 0 0 *NULL* 0 0 2147483647 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1041511308 
 3E0E2989A5AF4185B6575FE1DA53C67A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

This is what I have gleaned from working with it.  I believe it covers
most of what you probably need to know. I'm still working on the rest :-)

# Policy INFO line
# 1   2 3 4 5   67 8  910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19   20  
21   22
#INFO 6 0 0 0 *NULL* 0 0 2147483647 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 1088520139 
85BD1B0A1DD211B2AE2C0800208094C0 1
#
# 1 Tag
# 2 Policy Type
# 3 Follow NFS/Backup Network Drives (0 no/1 yes)
# 4 Compression (0 no/1 yes)
# 5 Job Priority (int value)
# 6
# 7
# 8 Collect DR Info (0 no/1 yes)
# 9 Limit Jobs Per Policy (int value)
#10 Cross Mount Points (0 no/ 1 yes)
#11
#12 Active (0 yes / 1 no)
#13 Collect TIR (0 no/1 yes/2 yes with move detection)
#14
#15
#16
#17 Allow Multiple Data Streams
#18
#19
#20 Active Date
#21
#22

-- 
David Rock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs

[Paul Keating]

Title: Message



Correct!! ..in theory.not accounting for NBU reassembling the 
"bits" into a continuous stream.causing loadon your media server, and 
bottlenecking on your FC/SANinterfaces.

Basically, between system resources and IO, your system is capable of 
140MB/s in this scenarioincluding processing power to rip apart and 
reassemble the fragments.

You're 
able to read in 140MB/s, pull apart, reassemble and spit out 
11MB/s

Going 
direct from VTL, single stream, all else being equal, depending on how 
compressable your data is, you might get 50MB/s to a drive...maybe 30-40MB/s to 
each of 2 drives.

*shrug*

just a 
guessI'd be very interested in knowing what your actual performance ends up 
being.

Paul


-- 

  
  -Original Message-From: Liddle, Stuart 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: September 19, 2006 1:55 
  PMTo: Paul Keating; 
  veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduSubject: RE: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 
  throughput on Vault/Duplication jobs
  
  OK.we have MPX=6 for 
  the VTL, so it looks like we would be getting about maybe 21MB/sec according 
  to what you are saying..right?
  .


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 maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

[Paul Keating]

Your max shared memory shmmax value should be at minimum:

NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS x SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS x number of tape drives x max
multiplex

I don't have the doc readily available to cite, but in essence, 

If you have late model drives that are using a 256k buffer, and you have
4 connected drives, and you multiplex 4 streams per drive, and have 64
buffers configured, then you should have a shmmax of:

262144 x 64 x 4 x 4 = 268435456

Paul

-- 


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
 Of Kathryn Hemness
 Sent: September 19, 2006 2:10 PM
 To: Nardello, John
 Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration
 
 
 Greetings,
 
 Thanks to all who respondedMost of the suggestions were helpful.
 
 This is a good technote and I'm going to try adjusting my values.
 Regarding bob944's comments, my Linux media servers ARE running
 with default kernel parameters and I'm seeing shared memory errors.
 The files in the /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config were recommended
 for both Solaris and Linux.  It is for these reasons that I posted
 my query.
 
 I'm posting my current values for the parameters and indicating
 the recommended minimal settings in parenthesis:
 
 kernel.msgmnb = 16384 (65536)
 kernel.msgmni = 16(256)
 kernel.msgmax = 8192  (8192)
 
 
 kernel.shmmni = 4096 (1024)
 kernel.shmall = 2097152  (nothing indicated in document)
 kernel.shmmax = 33554432 (16777216) - my value is already 
 larger, so I'm keeping it.
 
 
 kernel.sem = 25032000   32  128
 (300 1024   32  1024)
semmsl, semmns, semopm, semmni)
 
 My Linux servers have 4GB of memory so I can always make 
 upward adjustments.
 
 
 
 On Tue, 19 Sep 2006, Nardello, John wrote:
 
  Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:21:59 -0700
  From: Nardello, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: Kathryn Hemness [EMAIL PROTECTED],
   veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
  Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration
 
  Technote talking about Linux kernel tuning recommendations:
  http://support.veritas.com/docs/263755
 
  A little old but I doubt the variables have changed any.
 
  - John Nardello
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
 Behalf Of Kathryn
  Hemness
  Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 3:59 PM
  To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
  Subject: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration
 
  Greetings,
 
  My backup enterprise currently consists of a Solaris 9 Sun 
 V240 master
  and 3 Sun X4200 RHEL3 Linux Media Servers running NB51MP5.
 
  I've been getting the following messages for backups and 
 duplications
  to storage units on my Linux media servers:
 
 problems encountered during setup of shared memory (89)
 
  I use disk storage units and a mixed LTO2/LTO3 library.
 
  I've attempted to setup my Linux media servers similar to 
 my Solaris 9
  master by using the same NUMBER/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS files in
  /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config.  But on my Solaris 9 master, I also
  had /etc/system settings for msgsys, semsys, and shmsys values.
 
  I haven't been able to find anything about needing similar
  /etc/system tuning on Linux (I believe the /etc/system 
 equivalents are
  set
  via the /etc/sysctl.conf file).
 
  I'm hoping someone can tell me if all of the /etc/system 
 parameters can
  be set with sysctl on Linux and if their names are the 
 same.  Here are
  my
  current Solaris /etc/system parameters:
 
  set msgsys:msginfo_msgmap=512
  set msgsys:msginfo_msgmax=8192
  set msgsys:msginfo_msgmnb=65536
  set msgsys:msginfo_msgmni=256
  set msgsys:msginfo_msgssz=16
  set msgsys:msginfo_msgtql=512
  set msgsys:msginfo_msgseg=8192
 
  set semsys:seminfo_semmap=64
  set semsys:seminfo_semmni=1024
  set semsys:seminfo_semmns=1024
  set semsys:seminfo_semmnu=1024
  set semsys:seminfo_semmsl=300
  set semsys:seminfo_semopm=32
  set semsys:seminfo_semume=64
 
  set shmsys:shminfo_shmmax=536870912
  set shmsys:shminfo_shmmin=1
  set shmsys:shminfo_shmmni=220
  set shmsys:shminfo_shmseg=100
 
  Any help is appreciated.
  --Kathy
  ___
  Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
  http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
 
 
 
 --Kathy
 
 ___
 Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
 http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
 

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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Linux Shared Memory Configuration

[bob944]

 This is a good technote and I'm going to try adjusting my values.
 Regarding bob944's comments, my Linux media servers ARE running
 with default kernel parameters and I'm seeing shared memory errors.
 The files in the /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config were recommended
 for both Solaris and Linux.  It is for these reasons that I posted
 my query.

You missed the point, or perhaps I didn't make it clearly.  You said you
copied the SIZE/NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS from the Sol9 system to the Linux
one.  These--the tuning parameters--are what is causing your status 89s.
Remove the BUFFER forcing, let NetBackup use its defaults, backups will
run.  Again, RTFM is suggested so you understand the consequences of
what you are changing.


___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Bppllist columns

[Peter DrakeUnderkoffler]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

This is from NBU6, so there are some more fields, but I think this is right.


# 1 Tag
# 2 Policy Type
# 3 Follow NFS/Backup Network Drives (0 no/1 yes)
# 4 Cross Mount Points
# 5 Client Compress
# 6 Priority
# 7 Encrypt
# 8 Collect DR Info (0 no/1 yes)
# 9 Limit Jobs Per Policy (int value)
#10 Max frag size
#11 Active|Inactive
#12 Effective Time
#13 Collect TIR (0 no/1 yes/2 yes with move detection)
#14 Extended Security
#15 rfile (individual restore from raw)
#16 Block Incremental
#17 Allow Multiple Data Streams
#18 Frozen image
#19 Backup copy
#20 Number of copies
#21 Fail on error
#22 Collect BMR info
#23 Checkpoint
#24 Checkpoint interval (minutes)
#25 Offhost backup
#26 Use alternate client
#27 Use data mover (off host bkups)
#28 Data mover type
#29 Collect BMR info
#30 Keyword
#31 Policy ID


Thanks
Peter

Peter DrakeUnderkoffler
Xinupro, LLC
617-834-2352



David Rock wrote:
 * Clooney, David [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-09-19 11:53]:
 
Hi All

Does anyone have the columns for 

bppllist $policy 

Basically trying to put something together based on policy type, trying to 
get the columns specifically for the INFO section below.

Eg.

CLASS croyvtsms_oracle *NULL* 0 50 169200 *NULL*
NAMES
INFO 0 0 0 0 *NULL* 0 0 2147483647 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1041511308 
3E0E2989A5AF4185B6575FE1DA53C67A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 
 
 
 This is what I have gleaned from working with it.  I believe it covers
 most of what you probably need to know. I'm still working on the rest :-)
 
 # Policy INFO line
 # 1   2 3 4 5   67 8  910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19   20 
  21   22
 #INFO 6 0 0 0 *NULL* 0 0 2147483647 0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0  0 1088520139 
 85BD1B0A1DD211B2AE2C0800208094C0 1

#
 # 1 Tag
 # 2 Policy Type
 # 3 Follow NFS/Backup Network Drives (0 no/1 yes)
 # 4 Compression (0 no/1 yes)
 # 5 Job Priority (int value)
 # 6
 # 7
 # 8 Collect DR Info (0 no/1 yes)
 # 9 Limit Jobs Per Policy (int value)
 #10 Cross Mount Points (0 no/ 1 yes)
 #11
 #12 Active (0 yes / 1 no)
 #13 Collect TIR (0 no/1 yes/2 yes with move detection)
 #14
 #15
 #16
 #17 Allow Multiple Data Streams
 #18
 #19
 #20 Active Date
 #21
 #22
 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFEEo4l+lekZRM55oRAraqAJ4uHgW5G9SFPP2c0YoJhcVCT4gtiACbBpcy
dA3lr+4ajeWPP+eY25z4aF8=
=HVoa
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] NBU 6 help with Sharepoint

[Wilkinson, Tim]

Hi,

We (I say we but 
it's actually some colleagues on another site - I'm looking after the backups) 
had a Sharepoint server that was backing up fine using the Sharepoint 
agent.
Then the databases 
were moved to another server (i.e. Sharepoint and IIS are on a 'front-end' 
server, with the Sharepoint dbs being on a 'back-end' server that runs SQL but 
not Sharepoint) and now NBU can't backup the databases.
Apparently this is a 
recommended configuration by Microsoft so it shouldn't be too hard to backup but 
I'm getting error 13 now (file read failed). I've got a case logged with 
Symantec but if anyone has any experience with Sharepoint, I'd appreciate and 
knowledge/help.

Sharepoint was 
backing up fine before the databases were moved, and is backing up a db called 
'INDEX BD1', which appears to be local; it's the Sharepoint databases on the SQL 
server it can't backup.

Cheers,

  - 
  Tim Wilkinson I.T. Support Officer Science 
  Corporate Information Systems Defence 
  Science  Technology Organisation Department of Defence 
  Tel: (02) 96921484 Fax: (02) 96921562 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu