Re: [Veritas-bu] Firewall setup
Run bpclient -client $CLIENT -add -no_callback 1 on your master server (replacing $CLIENT with your client's name). Or from the GUI : NetBackup Management -- Host Properties -- Master Servers (right click on the relevant one) -- Properties -- Client Attributes -- Add. Add your client set BPCD Connect Back to VNETD port. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anas Kayal Sent: 21 December 2006 06:29 To: NB List Mail Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Firewall setup Guys, I have 2 servers in my DMZ. Now after reading this forum I opened ports 13720 and 13724 and permitted access from my master server to both servers in DMZ in both directions. Now how do I specify that this port should be used by this client and the other port by the other client? Anas Kayal IT Department System Administrator _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hindle, Greg Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 9:30 PM To: Weber, Philip; NB List Mail Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Firewall setup OK. So on the firewall you only open ports 13782, 13724 and 13720? And then configure the clients to use the same 3 ports? All other are closed? Greg _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Weber, Philip Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 10:38 AM To: NB List Mail Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Firewall setup We've gone firewall-mad over the last couple of years and now pretty much all of our clients are behind at least one firewall from the perspective of the NetBackup servers. In general we open ports 13782, 13724 and 13720 in both directions, to make life simpler. This can be reduced so that only 13782 is open from the DMZ - which is what we do for clients in the real DMZ. Set the clients to use vnetd, in the clients tab of the master server properties (or use bpclient). We do occasionally have connection errors and currently have a big issue in our NB 5.1 MP5 environment, with frequent but irregular hanging backups, where the backup has apparently completed but hangs at 99% or 100%. Seems to be because the final call from the client back to bpbrm is not being received by the media server. Seems to be something in our environment but we are in the process of trying to prove this between Symantec and our Network support team. Also in some cases have firewalls between media/master servers which is a whole new problem... Phil Weber Business Technology (Egg) Storage Technical Services - Senior UNIX Technologist -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hindle, Greg Sent: 18 December 2006 13:06 To: NB List Mail Subject: [Veritas-bu] Firewall setup Nb 5.0 mp6 Solaris 9 We have a DMZ zone setup that has 10 servers in it. We back up these servers through our firewall. We occasionally get connection errors. I would like to know if anyone else out there would be interested in sharing their setup, port ranges etc on how they backup servers through a firewall. We currently do not use the firewall section in the host properties and I am thinking that maybe I should be adding the servers that are on the other side of the firewall to this tab. Greg This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. CEG-IP2 _ Egg is a trading name of the Egg group of companies which includes: Egg plc (reg no 2448340), Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd (reg no 3828289), and Egg Banking plc (reg no 2999842). Egg Banking plc and Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and are entered in the FSA register under numbers 205621 and 309551 respectively. These members of the Egg group are registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Laurence Pountney Hill, London EC4R 0HH. This e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have received it in error, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete it from your mailbox. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Egg group of companies do not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by the Egg group of companies in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate. This communication does not create or modify any contract. This mail has
[Veritas-bu] Backup of Large Windows Volume
NetBackup 5.1 MP5, Solaris 9 master/media servers. I have a Windows 2000 client with approx 900 Gb D: drive which I want to split into multiple streams, e.g. Stream 1 : D:\Shares\shareddata\All Departments\folder1 (100 Gb) Stream 2 : D:\Shares\shareddata\All Departments (the rest - 130 Gb) Stream 3 : D:\Shares\shareddata\folder1 (160 Gb) Stream 4 : D:\Shares\shareddata\folder2 (52 Gb) D:\Shares\shareddata\folder3 (52 Gb) Stream 5 : D:\Shares\shareddata (the rest - 270 Gb) Stream 6 : D:\Shares (the rest - 130 Gb) As far as I can see I'll have to create separate policies for all of these, in order to be able to use exclude lists to prevent duplication of backups. Is there some way that I have missed where I can add these all to one policy using NEW_STREAM, and not get duplication of data? thanks, Phil Phil Weber Business Technology (Egg) Storage Technical Services - Senior UNIX Technologist - Egg is a trading name of the Egg group of companies which includes: Egg plc (reg no 2448340), Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd (reg no 3828289), and Egg Banking plc (reg no 2999842). Egg Banking plc and Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and are entered in the FSA register under numbers 205621 and 309551 respectively. These members of the Egg group are registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Laurence Pountney Hill, London EC4R 0HH. This e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have received it in error, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete it from your mailbox. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Egg group of companies do not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by the Egg group of companies in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate. This communication does not create or modify any contract. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Backup of Large Windows Volume
I don't think you want to have seperate streams from the same physical disk. This is from the Admin Doc. For best performance, use only one data stream to back up each physical device on the client. Multiple concurrent streams from a single physical device can adversely affect backup times because the heads must move back and forth between tracks containing files for the respective streams. Your selections would probably thrash the disk pretty hard. Steve _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Weber, Philip Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:45 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Backup of Large Windows Volume NetBackup 5.1 MP5, Solaris 9 master/media servers. I have a Windows 2000 client with approx 900 Gb D: drive which I want to split into multiple streams, e.g. Stream 1 : D:\Shares\shareddata\All Departments\folder1 (100 Gb) Stream 2 : D:\Shares\shareddata\All Departments (the rest - 130 Gb) Stream 3 : D:\Shares\shareddata\folder1 (160 Gb) Stream 4 : D:\Shares\shareddata\folder2 (52 Gb) D:\Shares\shareddata\folder3 (52 Gb) Stream 5 : D:\Shares\shareddata (the rest - 270 Gb) Stream 6 : D:\Shares (the rest - 130 Gb) As far as I can see I'll have to create separate policies for all of these, in order to be able to use exclude lists to prevent duplication of backups. Is there some way that I have missed where I can add these all to one policy using NEW_STREAM, and not get duplication of data? thanks, Phil Phil Weber Business Technology (Egg) Storage Technical Services - Senior UNIX Technologist _ Egg is a trading name of the Egg group of companies which includes: Egg plc (reg no 2448340), Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd (reg no 3828289), and Egg Banking plc (reg no 2999842). Egg Banking plc and Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and are entered in the FSA register under numbers 205621 and 309551 respectively. These members of the Egg group are registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Laurence Pountney Hill, London EC4R 0HH. This e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have received it in error, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete it from your mailbox. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Egg group of companies do not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is accepted by the Egg group of companies in this regard and the recipient should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate. This communication does not create or modify any contract. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO-3 throughput expectations
On 12/21/06, Steve Kirkpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NB5.0MP6 Master server: Sun V440 w/ 4x1.2GHZ SPARC III, 8GB RAM running Solaris 10 Sun L500 library with four HPUltrium LTO-3 drives connected to master server via 2GB SAN. I can't seem to get more than 12.5MB/sec throughput on these LTO-3 drives. That is about the same as I am getting on another server's SCSI-connected LTO-1 drives. I see the same performance whether I am duplicating tapes using bpduplicate or when I am backing up clients over a gigabit network. After reading all of the recent threads concerning tape drive performance, shoeshining, etc, I can't believe that the master server is only able to feed 12.5MB/sec of data to these drives. You bottleneck is most likely the network and/or the source system. A gigabit network maxes out at 35 MB/sec in some cases. Getting better than 50 MB/sec is rare. Some of the previous threads on the subject suggested multiplexing jobs across drives but I worry that doing so will cause my duplicate jobs to take longer as well as hamper restore performance. Need I be worried about that? If you don't multiplex, then your max speed for the tape will be the max speed of the server yo are backing up. If you factor in the compression ratio, you will have an even more difficult time maintaining the minimum sptreaming speed. You almost certainly need to use multiplexing and cut down the number of active drives in your storage unit. Try 1 drive and MPX=4. If you can add a network link you should be able to add a second drive to your storage unit. Austin ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Backup of Large Windows Volume
I have several different combinations of this going on here with mixed results. On certain hardwares my fastest backups are writing a single data stream but with most starting 2nd,m 3rd or even 4th simultaneous streams is what produces the best results. I've been through the ringer on this one, but suffice to say that every system will not be the same so you are better off testing both. Different storage vendors handle multiple streams in different ways, and multiple spindles vs/ drive write speeds all create a complete mess. IMO you are better off trying 1 method, then next backup trying the next. Judge for yourself with your specific conditions because no blanket this way works best statement could possibly cover all the unknowns. -Jonathan From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Weber, Philip Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:27 AM To: Steve Fogarty; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Backup of Large Windows Volume It's a SAN-based volume so I'm not too worried about this, we do it elsewhere. Will have to keep an eye on it but current performance stats indicate I should be able to get the data off the disks faster with multiple streams. -Original Message- From: Steve Fogarty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2006 15:16 To: Weber, Philip; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Backup of Large Windows Volume I don't think you want to have seperate streams from the same physical disk. This is from the Admin Doc. For best performance, use only one data stream to back up each physical device on the client. Multiple concurrent streams from a single physical device can adversely affect backup times because the heads must move back and forth between tracks containing files for the respective streams. Your selections would probably thrash the disk pretty hard. Steve From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Weber, Philip Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:45 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Backup of Large Windows Volume NetBackup 5.1 MP5, Solaris 9 master/media servers. I have a Windows 2000 client with approx 900 Gb D: drive which I want to split into multiple streams, e.g. Stream 1 : D:\Shares\shareddata\All Departments\folder1 (100 Gb) Stream 2 : D:\Shares\shareddata\All Departments (the rest - 130 Gb) Stream 3 : D:\Shares\shareddata\folder1 (160 Gb) Stream 4 : D:\Shares\shareddata\folder2 (52 Gb) D:\Shares\shareddata\folder3 (52 Gb) Stream 5 : D:\Shares\shareddata (the rest - 270 Gb) Stream 6 : D:\Shares (the rest - 130 Gb) As far as I can see I'll have to create separate policies for all of these, in order to be able to use exclude lists to prevent duplication of backups. Is there some way that I have missed where I can add these all to one policy using NEW_STREAM, and not get duplication of data? thanks, Phil Phil Weber Business Technology (Egg) Storage Technical Services - Senior UNIX Technologist Egg is a trading name of the Egg group of companies which includes: Egg plc (reg no 2448340), Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd (reg no 3828289), and Egg Banking plc (reg no 2999842). Egg Banking plc and Egg Financial Intermediation Ltd are authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and are entered in the FSA register under numbers 205621 and 309551 respectively. These members of the Egg group are registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Laurence Pountney Hill, London EC4R 0HH. This e-mail is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have received it in error, please return the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete it from your mailbox. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. The Egg group of companies do not accept responsibility for changes made to this message after it was sent. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect its
Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO-3 throughput expectations
Thanks for the info Austin. You pretty much confirm what I have been reading. Anyone else have an idea of why I can only seem to drive the tape drives at 12.5MB/sec when duplicating tapes on the master server? The server itself is not loaded during this activity. It seems that bpduplicate should be able to read at max speed and write at max speed simultaneously especially since the drives and server are connected over a 2gb/sec SAN. I guess the long-term solution is to go with a disk-based device (such as the Data Domain) for the initial backups and then archive to tape from there. Also, what about the bpduplicate performance when duplicating multiplexed tapes? How about restores from the same? Am I just moving the bottleneck from one place to another? Any links to info that will educate me on the subject are appreciated. Thanks again, Steve. -Original Message- From: Austin Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:24 AM To: Steve Kirkpatrick Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO-3 throughput expectations On 12/21/06, Steve Kirkpatrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: NB5.0MP6 Master server: Sun V440 w/ 4x1.2GHZ SPARC III, 8GB RAM running Solaris 10 Sun L500 library with four HPUltrium LTO-3 drives connected to master server via 2GB SAN. I can't seem to get more than 12.5MB/sec throughput on these LTO-3 drives. That is about the same as I am getting on another server's SCSI-connected LTO-1 drives. I see the same performance whether I am duplicating tapes using bpduplicate or when I am backing up clients over a gigabit network. After reading all of the recent threads concerning tape drive performance, shoeshining, etc, I can't believe that the master server is only able to feed 12.5MB/sec of data to these drives. You bottleneck is most likely the network and/or the source system. A gigabit network maxes out at 35 MB/sec in some cases. Getting better than 50 MB/sec is rare. Some of the previous threads on the subject suggested multiplexing jobs across drives but I worry that doing so will cause my duplicate jobs to take longer as well as hamper restore performance. Need I be worried about that? If you don't multiplex, then your max speed for the tape will be the max speed of the server yo are backing up. If you factor in the compression ratio, you will have an even more difficult time maintaining the minimum sptreaming speed. You almost certainly need to use multiplexing and cut down the number of active drives in your storage unit. Try 1 drive and MPX=4. If you can add a network link you should be able to add a second drive to your storage unit. Austin ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] RMANs failing - (false) media errors
Hi I think RMAN agent backups fail if they have to wait for media Anybody else seen this behaviour or know of a fix? NBU= 5.1 MP3 MP5 RMANs persistantly and randomly failing due to media errors. They seem to occur on unix clients where the RMAN script does many databases in parallel. We don't have wintel oracle -- RegardsJim ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO-3 throughput expectations
Hi Steve We are a Windows based shop running 6.0 MP3. We use an HP MSL6060 library with 4 LT03 drives. When backing up individual servers over a gigabit network we can get 80-90MB/s especially when backing up databases. During the overnight backup run when many servers backup together we get up to 60MB/s. The vault duplication process runs at up to 150MB/s with most being around the 100MB/s. I don't know if you have had a chance to play with the Netbackup buffers but that was where the biggest gains were for us. Ours are currently set to:- SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK 1048576 NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS 64 NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_DISK64 SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS 262144 NET_BUFFER_SZ 1048576 We had a play with multiplexing but found that the gains during backups were almost negated by the extra time taken to do the vault process. Since the time pressure for us was during the vault process not overnight backups we turned it off again. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Kirkpatrick Sent: Friday, 22 December 2006 6:56 am To: Austin Murphy Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO-3 throughput expectations Thanks for the info Austin. You pretty much confirm what I have been reading. Anyone else have an idea of why I can only seem to drive the tape drives at 12.5MB/sec when duplicating tapes on the master server? The server itself is not loaded during this activity. It seems that bpduplicate should be able to read at max speed and write at max speed simultaneously especially since the drives and server are connected over a 2gb/sec SAN. I guess the long-term solution is to go with a disk-based device (such as the Data Domain) for the initial backups and then archive to tape from there. Also, what about the bpduplicate performance when duplicating multiplexed tapes? How about restores from the same? Am I just moving the bottleneck from one place to another? Any links to info that will educate me on the subject are appreciated. Thanks again, Steve. ** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz ** ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] 155 errors and NDMP backups
Hey all, I am getting some odd errors... I am backing up a whole mess of NetApp's via 3 way backups through Solaris media servers w/ fiber-attached LTO3 drives. For some reason on three of the netapps I appear to consistently get 155 (disk is full) errors. The volumes being backed up aren't any bigger than those that back up just fine from the other filers, so I don't think its a size issue... There doesn't appear to be much info online re: people having issues w/ 155's... Any thoughts? -Shane ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
