[Veritas-bu] Re: Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

[dy018]

Hi

Some of you mentioned abt backing up client using multiplexing to VTL and then 
do de multiplex when duplicating to actual LTO tape. How is the process done? 
Using a special policy? Or bpdbplicate/Vault already able to do it 
automatically for u?

This de multiplexing is different for disk staging where all the Incr images 
plus a full backup image to form a new Virtual Full Backup? (aka Synthetic 
backup)


Thank you all





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

[Veritas-bu] Re: Multiplexing Query

[dy018]

Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to say there are 3 policies altogether 
for the 3 clients. So its only 3 policies not 9.

I'm not using data streaming. But i term of VTL context, was jus wondering if i 
use data streaming to Virtual Tapes, i still can de stream all the images from 
different Virtual Tapes into a single physical Tape during the duplication 
process?





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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

[Curtis Preston]

Nothing speaks like experience.  

Your experience was that Vault didn't work for you, and I'm glad to see
you tried mpx and not.  I completely agree about the big files/small
files thing.

I also know that I've been able to dupe pretty stinking fast WITH Vault
from a VTL, so MAYBE the problem was not Vault, but your VTL. Your
problem went away when you stopped using Vault, so you assumed it was
Vault.  I'm just suggesting that maybe it wasn't.

OR perhaps you had the million file problem and Vault may indeed slow
you down.

Just wish I could have played with it some.  (Can I come see you,
Stuart?  Do you miss me?) ;)

I like the idea of ejecting full tapes.  That way you don't have the
tape capacity loss I referred to.  In some environments, the capacity
loss is not a "small price to pay," but a "huge price to pay," causing
them to think the other way is better.

I'm actually glad to hear that someone is using the integrated method
and it's working for them.  I've always been a fan, but I get lots of
c**P from the ISVs when I talk about it.

---
W. Curtis Preston
Author of O'Reilly's Backup & Recovery and Using SANs and NAS
VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies


-Original Message-
From: Liddle, Stuart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:10 PM
To: Curtis Preston; Liddle, Stuart; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

OKso now I have to disagree with Curtis on his disagreement

We tried using Vault with both preserving of Multiplexing and doing
de-multiplexing on the vault copies.  In both cases, we did not get very
good throughput.  Most of my time was spent trying to balance the amount
of
space on the VTL's that had not yet been vaulted.  We also found that
when
you have an image consisting of lots of small files, it will be slower
than
if you have a few very large files (like database files).  

When stuff did get vaulted, we had to bpexpdate the images on the VTL's
to
free up space for the ever-increasing amount of backups coming in.
Symantec/Veritas had people helping us with this issue for weeks before
we
finally gave up and went with the "Direct Tape Copy" cloning method
built
into the NetApp VTL's (good stuff).

We were having a terrible time with trying to get Vault to keep ahead of
the
data coming in for backups to the VTL'sand that was before we had
fully
migrated all of our legacy backup systems to our new environment.  We
had to
have scripts to keep track of what we could bpexpdate off of the VTL to
make
room for backups.

Yes, we realize that NetBackup does not really "know" about the true
location of the tapes that we clone using the Direct Tape Copy method.
And
we had to partition our physical tape library to accommodate this
approach.
But this was a small price to pay for the problems we encountered using
Vault.  And, I would happily deal with this  rather than have to worry
about
whether or not an older backup was successfully Vauted or not or if I
have
enough space on my VTL.

Right now our monitoring of the VTL's consists of checking on available
tapes and assigning new ones when they get low.  We have a script that
eject
full tapes from the VTL's hourly and active tapes once a day.  The eject
is
what triggers the cloning to physical tape.  There are some other issues
that we've had to deal with on the VTL's, but all are minor compared to
what
we used to have.

And, yes, it's also true that it might be inefficient in the tape use
because of the way the VTL allocates space for the virtual
tapeagain, a
small price to pay.

Still doing upwards of 200TB/week  approaching 1 Petabyte/month.

--stuart

-Original Message-
From: Curtis Preston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:58 PM
To: Liddle, Stuart; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

Stuart Liddle said:
>NODon't use Vault to duplicate from VTL to physical tape!!!

Looks like it's my week to disagree with you, Stuart. 
(Sorry.  I love ya' man!)

>We tried this, and in NB 5.1 MP6, Vault is a HOG!!  We were not able to
>Keep the drives spinning fast enough using Vault.  The best speeds we
saw >going to physical tape using vault was maybe 30MB/sec.  Usually we
got 
>around 10MB/sec or lesswhich is definitely not a good thing.

I've been able to get Vault to go MUCH faster than that. I would say
there are keys to doing it right.  The biggest one I see is that you
should either use multiplexing or not.  Don't mpx to tape (or virtual
tape) and then de-mpx when you copy.  VTL will suck just as bad as
regular tape when you do that.  So either preserve mpx when you dupe, or
don't mpx to your VTL (better).  Another key is having enough I/O
bandwidth in the media server to pull it off.

>What we ended up doing was using the built-in feature of our NetApp VTL
to
>do the cloning of the virtual tape to physical tape.  Now w

Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

[Curtis Preston]

If you use a storage unit group (available for a few versions now) or
"any available," any available media server can backup any other media
server's client, or at least any clients that are configured that way.

 

Still don't have an answer to your other question. ;)

 

---

W. Curtis Preston

Author of O'Reilly's Backup & Recovery and Using SANs and NAS

VP Data Protection

GlassHouse Technologies

 



From: Steven L. Sesar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 12:18 PM
To: Curtis Preston
Cc: Meidal, Knut; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

 

Curtis Preston wrote: 

Steven L. Sesar said:
 
  

The way that CommVault does it with Gridstor is that each media
server 
shares an index cache (the equivalent of NBU's
catalog/databases) via 
NFS or CIFS. I call it a "poor man's clustered filesystem". It
affords 
one the luxury of pooling media servers, such that if one goes
down,


any 
  

other can take over in it's place. Since the index cache is
shared, the


 
  

job just picks up where it left off. It also allow one to load
balance 
among media servers. 


 
NBU's index is already centralized at the master (and therefore shared
amongst media server), so media servers can take over for other media
servers any time.
  


Really? They will automatically failover/load balance? Something new in
6.x? How are the media servers logically grouped? Is this now a function
of STU groups? (pssst! I'm the guy who asked you the question at SNW
about email archiving's potential impact on de-duplication - still
haven't gotten a good answer on that one)




 
  

The same goes for disk storage targets. If disk 
storage unit "A" becomes unavailable for any reason, disk STU
"B" can


be 
  

configured to take over in it's place. Massive job and component


resiliency!
 
This is where CommVault shines.  They can share a disk device on the SAN
where NBU can't (yet), and backups can span disk devices where NBU can't
(yet).  NBU 6.5 (due next month) is supposed to have both of these.
  






-- 
===
 
   Steven L. Sesar
   Lead Operating Systems Programmer/Analyst
   UNIX Application Services R101
   The MITRE Corporation
   202 Burlington Road - MS K101
   Bedford, MA 01730
   tel: (781) 271-7702
   fax: (781) 271-2600
   mobile: (617) 519-8933
   email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
=== 
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Synthetic Full Backups

[Curtis Preston]

I'm a big fan, but I would agree that they're not for everybody.  One
thing that makes them faster is using disk as the target (at least) and
the source (hopefully).

---
W. Curtis Preston
Author of O'Reilly's Backup & Recovery and Using SANs and NAS
VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne T
Smith
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 1:25 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Synthetic Full Backups

This was some time ago, but I found synthetic backups to be either 
irrelevant (due to restrictions on their applicability) or unusable (due

to the occasional problems that seem to require new full backups) at my 
shop (v5.1).   That, and the last thing that my shop needed were more 
long tape-to-tape copies, caused me to quickly try and then scrap its 
use.   Increasing network capability and moving large data accumulations

to the central site have helped my problem of long full backups.  Adding

backup to disk or maybe VTL is another step to smooth our operations 
(and be able to feed more modern tape drives).

Thanks to everyone for the fine discussion of VTL in another thread!

cheers, wayne

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part,  on 2007-05-14 3:18
PM:
>
> I am curious if anyone is using the Synthetic Full Backup feature that

> is provided with Netbackup now.  If people are using it, what issues 
> if any have you come across with this feature and what specific 
> workload have you applied this feature to?   Also, what benefits have 
> you seen ?   Thanks!
>
___
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] LTO4

[Len Boyle]

IBM has released their drives at the end of last month.  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Kiles
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:14 PM
To: Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] LTO4

Any idea when LTO4 drives/media starts shipping? Also will NBU5.x will support 
it?
Thanks


   
Get
 the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
___
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] Vaulting Question

[Mansell, Richard]

If you back up the data using separate policies then each policy can
have a different retention level (0-24). These can all have a one month
retention period within DataDomain but will also have different
retention levels.
 
You can then use the retention mappings within the vault to have a
different retention period for each level. That way you only need to
have one vault process.
 
Regards
 
Richard




From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JAJA
(Jamie Jamison)
Sent: Tuesday, 15 May 2007 6:32 am
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Vaulting Question


I'm currently backing all of my systems up to DataDomain
restorers with a one month retention period for the copy on the restorer
and then duplicating from the restorer, using NetBackup Vault, to tape
with a six month retention and sending the tapes offsite to Iron
Mountain. Recently we decided to change the retention level for certain
data from six months to two months and I am trying to figure out how to
make this work with vaulting. If I create multiple profiles within one
vault, one with a six month retention and another with a two month
retention I run into the problem of scheduling, I can't run more than
one profile at a time. I could create a new vault, but then I'm
wondering how the eject and catalog backup steps work. I only want to
eject tapes once a week and run one catalog backup for off-siting. Any
help that anyone can provide on this will be greatly appreciated.
 
 
Thanks,
 
 
Jamie Jamison


**
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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Synthetic Full Backups

[Wayne T Smith]

This was some time ago, but I found synthetic backups to be either 
irrelevant (due to restrictions on their applicability) or unusable (due 
to the occasional problems that seem to require new full backups) at my 
shop (v5.1).   That, and the last thing that my shop needed were more 
long tape-to-tape copies, caused me to quickly try and then scrap its 
use.   Increasing network capability and moving large data accumulations 
to the central site have helped my problem of long full backups.  Adding 
backup to disk or maybe VTL is another step to smooth our operations 
(and be able to feed more modern tape drives).

Thanks to everyone for the fine discussion of VTL in another thread!

cheers, wayne

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, in part,  on 2007-05-14 3:18 PM:
>
> I am curious if anyone is using the Synthetic Full Backup feature that 
> is provided with Netbackup now.  If people are using it, what issues 
> if any have you come across with this feature and what specific 
> workload have you applied this feature to?   Also, what benefits have 
> you seen ?   Thanks!
>
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

[Liddle, Stuart]

OKso now I have to disagree with Curtis on his disagreement

We tried using Vault with both preserving of Multiplexing and doing
de-multiplexing on the vault copies.  In both cases, we did not get very
good throughput.  Most of my time was spent trying to balance the amount of
space on the VTL's that had not yet been vaulted.  We also found that when
you have an image consisting of lots of small files, it will be slower than
if you have a few very large files (like database files).  

When stuff did get vaulted, we had to bpexpdate the images on the VTL's to
free up space for the ever-increasing amount of backups coming in.
Symantec/Veritas had people helping us with this issue for weeks before we
finally gave up and went with the "Direct Tape Copy" cloning method built
into the NetApp VTL's (good stuff).

We were having a terrible time with trying to get Vault to keep ahead of the
data coming in for backups to the VTL'sand that was before we had fully
migrated all of our legacy backup systems to our new environment.  We had to
have scripts to keep track of what we could bpexpdate off of the VTL to make
room for backups.

Yes, we realize that NetBackup does not really "know" about the true
location of the tapes that we clone using the Direct Tape Copy method.  And
we had to partition our physical tape library to accommodate this approach.
But this was a small price to pay for the problems we encountered using
Vault.  And, I would happily deal with this  rather than have to worry about
whether or not an older backup was successfully Vauted or not or if I have
enough space on my VTL.

Right now our monitoring of the VTL's consists of checking on available
tapes and assigning new ones when they get low.  We have a script that eject
full tapes from the VTL's hourly and active tapes once a day.  The eject is
what triggers the cloning to physical tape.  There are some other issues
that we've had to deal with on the VTL's, but all are minor compared to what
we used to have.

And, yes, it's also true that it might be inefficient in the tape use
because of the way the VTL allocates space for the virtual tapeagain, a
small price to pay.

Still doing upwards of 200TB/week  approaching 1 Petabyte/month.

--stuart

-Original Message-
From: Curtis Preston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:58 PM
To: Liddle, Stuart; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

Stuart Liddle said:
>NODon't use Vault to duplicate from VTL to physical tape!!!

Looks like it's my week to disagree with you, Stuart. 
(Sorry.  I love ya' man!)

>We tried this, and in NB 5.1 MP6, Vault is a HOG!!  We were not able to
>Keep the drives spinning fast enough using Vault.  The best speeds we
saw >going to physical tape using vault was maybe 30MB/sec.  Usually we
got 
>around 10MB/sec or lesswhich is definitely not a good thing.

I've been able to get Vault to go MUCH faster than that. I would say
there are keys to doing it right.  The biggest one I see is that you
should either use multiplexing or not.  Don't mpx to tape (or virtual
tape) and then de-mpx when you copy.  VTL will suck just as bad as
regular tape when you do that.  So either preserve mpx when you dupe, or
don't mpx to your VTL (better).  Another key is having enough I/O
bandwidth in the media server to pull it off.

>What we ended up doing was using the built-in feature of our NetApp VTL
to
>do the cloning of the virtual tape to physical tape.  Now we are
getting
>much better performance of around 50 - 60 MB/sec.

Glad it got better. ;)

>The problem is that Vault has way too much overhead in doing the
copying of
>the data.

Again, I have to disagree.

>With the built in cloning function of the VTL, you just connect the two
>firehoses together and the data gets written from virtual tape to
physical
>tape.

There are also limitations to this approach.  While it removes the I/O
from the media server, you get a lot of wasted media if you eject your
copies every day.  In addition, the backup software has no knowledge of
the copy process, so if it fails, you're on your own for monitoring it,
etc. (It's not that I don't recommend this approach, I just wanted to
say that it does have limitations, perhaps the chief of which is that
Symantec will disavow any support on any issues you have.  Yuck.)

---
W. Curtis Preston
Author of O'Reilly's Backup & Recovery and Using SANs and NAS
VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies



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

[Veritas-bu] Synthetic Full Backups

[markjessup]

I am curious if anyone is using the Synthetic Full Backup feature that
is provided with Netbackup now.  If people are using it, what issues if
any have you come across with this feature and what specific workload
have you applied this feature to?   Also, what benefits have you seen ?
Thanks!




Mark Jessup - IS Manager
Enterprise Storage and Content Management/Imaging 
Northwestern Mutual
(414) 661-3968
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential 
information of Northwestern Mutual. If you are not the intended recipient of 
this message, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of 
this e-mail and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail 
in error, please notify Northwestern Mutual immediately by returning it to the 
sender and delete all copies from your system. Please be advised that 
communications received via the Northwestern Mutual Secure Message Center are 
secure. Communications that are not received via the Northwestern Mutual Secure 
Message Center may not be secure and could be observed by a third party. Thank 
you for your cooperation.
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

[Steven L. Sesar]

Curtis Preston wrote:

Steven L. Sesar said:

  
The way that CommVault does it with Gridstor is that each media server 
shares an index cache (the equivalent of NBU's catalog/databases) via 
NFS or CIFS. I call it a "poor man's clustered filesystem". It affords 
one the luxury of pooling media servers, such that if one goes down,

any 
  

other can take over in it's place. Since the index cache is shared, the



  
job just picks up where it left off. It also allow one to load balance 
among media servers. 



NBU's index is already centralized at the master (and therefore shared
amongst media server), so media servers can take over for other media
servers any time.
  


Really? They will automatically failover/load balance? Something new in 
6.x? How are the media servers logically grouped? Is this now a function 
of STU groups? (pssst! I'm the guy who asked you the question at SNW 
about email archiving's potential impact on de-duplication - still 
haven't gotten a good answer on that one)


  
The same goes for disk storage targets. If disk 
storage unit "A" becomes unavailable for any reason, disk STU "B" can

be 
  

configured to take over in it's place. Massive job and component


resiliency!

This is where CommVault shines.  They can share a disk device on the SAN
where NBU can't (yet), and backups can span disk devices where NBU can't
(yet).  NBU 6.5 (due next month) is supposed to have both of these.
  



--
===

  Steven L. Sesar
  Lead Operating Systems Programmer/Analyst
  UNIX Application Services R101
  The MITRE Corporation
  202 Burlington Road - MS K101
  Bedford, MA 01730
  tel: (781) 271-7702
  fax: (781) 271-2600
  mobile: (617) 519-8933
  email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

=== 

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

[Veritas-bu] 5.1 Oct 2007 End of Support

[Scott Jacobson]

I also believe 5.1 MP4+ is the most rock solid product I've run (less DSSU 
issues) and would prefer to stay on that version and not be forced between 
choosing either 6.0 MP4+ or 6.5 GA
I would suggest for those in the group who are also wanting to wait for 6.5 
MP1+ to contact their Veritas/Symantec SE/Account Mgr's and let them know as a 
customer you're being placed between a rock and a hard place in terms of 
migration choices.
 
In talking with my former RTAM and current local Symantec SE, I'm starting to 
hear they maybe considering the Oct 2007 date as a "soft" and not a hard date.
 
Now maybe the time to put our voices behind this and tell them Oct 2007 end of 
support for 5.1 is unacceptable.
 
Scott

>>> "WEAVER, Simon (external)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/14/2007 8:47 AM >>>
Bit gutted really as I have personally found 5.1 to be rock solid here at both 
my sites!
 
Guess 6.5 is coming sooner than expected now then !?
 

Regards
Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator
EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: 14 May 2007 15:42
To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu 
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4


http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_DataCenter/279039.pdf
 
 
-- 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER, Simon 
(external)
Sent: May 14, 2007 9:59 AM
To: 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu 
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4


can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??
 
 

Regards
Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator
EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU
Email: [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 perso!
 nne
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.
This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, do 
not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any purpose or 
disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and any attachments 
from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if this email 
transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified.
-
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England

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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

[Curtis Preston]

Steven L. Sesar said:

>The way that CommVault does it with Gridstor is that each media server 
>shares an index cache (the equivalent of NBU's catalog/databases) via 
>NFS or CIFS. I call it a "poor man's clustered filesystem". It affords 
>one the luxury of pooling media servers, such that if one goes down,
any 
>other can take over in it's place. Since the index cache is shared, the

>job just picks up where it left off. It also allow one to load balance 
>among media servers. 

NBU's index is already centralized at the master (and therefore shared
amongst media server), so media servers can take over for other media
servers any time.

>The same goes for disk storage targets. If disk 
>storage unit "A" becomes unavailable for any reason, disk STU "B" can
be 
>configured to take over in it's place. Massive job and component
resiliency!

This is where CommVault shines.  They can share a disk device on the SAN
where NBU can't (yet), and backups can span disk devices where NBU can't
(yet).  NBU 6.5 (due next month) is supposed to have both of these.

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

[Veritas-bu] scratch pool compliance

[Jerry]

I would like to ensure that tapes within my scratch
pool are re-used within a certain number of weeks or
the data completely wiped off of them.  Is there
anyway veritas can do a wipe of the tape before
releasing it back into the scratch pool?

If not is there any way one can think of scripting
such a thing?  I suppose I would have to keep tabs on
what is in my scratch pool and make sure it got erased
somehow.  There is some worry about having expired
images on tape that someone could simply read back in
if desired.  I want stuff that is expired to be
unrecoverable. (reasonably).

-Jerry


 

Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate 
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO4

[Martin, Jonathan]

I'm pretty sure if you used VHS Media in a TLH compatible robot
Netbackup would use it.  As far as support goes, my understanding is
that NBU 5.1 support is ending this fall, so once released LTO4's
support (if it exists) is going to be brief.

-Jonathan
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Kiles
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 2:14 PM
To: Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] LTO4

Any idea when LTO4 drives/media starts shipping? Also will NBU5.x will
support it?
Thanks


   

Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever
you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
___
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] Vaulting Question

[JAJA (Jamie Jamison)]

I'm currently backing all of my systems up to DataDomain restorers with
a one month retention period for the copy on the restorer and then
duplicating from the restorer, using NetBackup Vault, to tape with a six
month retention and sending the tapes offsite to Iron Mountain. Recently
we decided to change the retention level for certain data from six
months to two months and I am trying to figure out how to make this work
with vaulting. If I create multiple profiles within one vault, one with
a six month retention and another with a two month retention I run into
the problem of scheduling, I can't run more than one profile at a time.
I could create a new vault, but then I'm wondering how the eject and
catalog backup steps work. I only want to eject tapes once a week and
run one catalog backup for off-siting. Any help that anyone can provide
on this will be greatly appreciated.
 
 
Thanks,
 
 
Jamie Jamison
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

[Steven L. Sesar]

> Some of the downsides of using disk as disk are 
>
> 1) Concurrency to disk: if you have multiple media servers, how to ensure
> they're cooperating peacefully when reading/writing to the same disk area.
> You can do that in several ways:
>
>   * Divide up in separate LUNs. Each media server owns it and creates
> a file system on it. Very difficult to change the amount allocated to each.
> Maybe a volume manager and advanced file system can address some of that.
>
>   * Cluster file system. Good solution. Introduces complexity and
> potentially cost. 
>
>   * "Gentleman's agreement" sharing of LUN. Access to files are
> centrally brokered by the master server. I believe this is how CommVault
> Galaxy/GridStor operates. The servers asks broker politely before writing to
> a certain disk area. Not a true cluster file system.
>
>   * 

The way that CommVault does it with Gridstor is that each media server 
shares an index cache (the equivalent of NBU's catalog/databases) via 
NFS or CIFS. I call it a "poor man's clustered filesystem". It affords 
one the luxury of pooling media servers, such that if one goes down, any 
other can take over in it's place. Since the index cache is shared, the 
job just picks up where it left off. It also allow one to load balance 
among media servers. The same goes for disk storage targets. If disk 
storage unit "A" becomes unavailable for any reason, disk STU "B" can be 
configured to take over in it's place. Massive job and component resiliency!

-- 
===

   Steven L. Sesar
   Lead Operating Systems Programmer/Analyst
   UNIX Application Services R101
   The MITRE Corporation
   202 Burlington Road - MS K101
   Bedford, MA 01730
   tel: (781) 271-7702
   fax: (781) 271-2600
   mobile: (617) 519-8933
   email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

=== 

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

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO4

[Curtis Preston]

IBM drives starting shipping last week.  Not sure about nbu support.

---
W. Curtis Preston
Author of O'Reilly's Backup & Recovery and Using SANs and NAS
VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Kiles
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:14 AM
To: Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] LTO4

Any idea when LTO4 drives/media starts shipping? Also
will NBU5.x will support it?
Thanks


   

Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever
you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
___
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] LTO4

[Mike Kiles]

Any idea when LTO4 drives/media starts shipping? Also
will NBU5.x will support it?
Thanks


   
Get
 the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing.
http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

[Meidal, Knut]

Warning, long ramble follows... I'll take the middle ground.

The existence of a VTL appliance is IMO due to the fact that backup
utilities (from now on limited to NBU) are not really stellar at using
"disk-as-disk" or DAD. They are reasonably good at using tape, as that has
been designed in from the very beginning.
Disk has unquestionable advantages (random access, near-zero mount/position
times), some more "it depends" traits, like transfer speed flexibility and
so on. 

Some of the downsides of using disk as disk are 

1) Concurrency to disk: if you have multiple media servers, how to ensure
they're cooperating peacefully when reading/writing to the same disk area.
You can do that in several ways:

* Divide up in separate LUNs. Each media server owns it and creates
a file system on it. Very difficult to change the amount allocated to each.
Maybe a volume manager and advanced file system can address some of that.

* Cluster file system. Good solution. Introduces complexity and
potentially cost. 

* "Gentleman's agreement" sharing of LUN. Access to files are
centrally brokered by the master server. I believe this is how CommVault
Galaxy/GridStor operates. The servers asks broker politely before writing to
a certain disk area. Not a true cluster file system.

* Use the disk as a network file system. Use CIFS/NFS to access your
disk pool and backup images. 

2) Provisioning/expansion of capacity. How to grow the LUNs, grow the
cluster file system, etc.

3) The backup application (especially NBU 5.1) IMO isn't very clever about
disk storage.


To get the best of both worlds, the advantages of disk, combined with NBU's
ability to administer tapes, the VTL was created, to use "disk-as-Tape".
NBU does the same ole thing it's always done, and reaps the benefits of
quick mounts and positioning, and the "hidden" capacity growth that happened
when adding more disk to the unit. (Just create more virtual tapes).
De-duplication can happen behind the scenes, NBU will never know.

The downside to VTLs are (or might be) that NBU does the backup to a tape
with a barcode. Job done! There is no insight into what goes on behind the
scenes, when the physical tape is removed etc. 

This is where Vault shines. It knows all about the primary copy, all the
secondary copies all the way thru the lifecycle. 
There is a layer of abstraction as to managing the VTL copy to the Physical
Tape, as well as potentially importing it again when restoring, we have
found that to be manageable.

I understand upcoming versions of NBU will have some integration with NetApp
VTL to handle some of these 'hidden' tasks. 

Additionally, the job of copying the disk data on to a physical tape takes
some amount of resources, from a CPU somewhere. If an intelligent VTL
doesn't do it, a media server will have to. If you have plenty of resources
on your media server, great, if not -you might affect the backup performance
while duplicating.

Bpduplicate in 5.1 appears to be inefficient. Upcoming versions couldn't
possibly be worse. (knock on wood)

As far as I know, there is no way of having a "duplication only" media
server role in NetBackup. The idea being that a client-facing media server
dumps data to a disk, then letting a NBU media server (not client facing)
read the disk data and write out to tape. This would offload the job from
the client-facing media server, and have NBU know all about the goings-on.
(A kind of roll-your-own duplication workload offload engine, or RYODWOE if
you will. (tm) )

So, bottom line:
VTLs are an intermediate way of using disk with your dumb backup
application. 
NBU isn't (yet) smart about using disk-as-disk. 
The VTL controller does a great job of offloading the media server to create
the phys tapes.
Redesign of application necessary to use disk optimally. Let's hope that
happens in 6.5 and onwards.

That was a long rant... I apologize, as I didn't have time to write a short
rant.

Knut Meidal


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis
Preston
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 10:58 PM
To: Liddle, Stuart; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Newbie to Netbackup using VTL

Stuart Liddle said:
>NODon't use Vault to duplicate from VTL to physical tape!!!

Looks like it's my week to disagree with you, Stuart. 
(Sorry.  I love ya' man!)

>We tried this, and in NB 5.1 MP6, Vault is a HOG!!  We were not able to
>Keep the drives spinning fast enough using Vault.  The best speeds we
saw >going to physical tape using vault was maybe 30MB/sec.  Usually we
got 
>around 10MB/sec or lesswhich is definitely not a good thing.

I've been able to get Vault to go MUCH faster than that. I would say
there are keys to doing it right.  The biggest one I see is that you
should either use multiplexing or not.  Don't mpx to tape (or virtual
tape) and then de-mpx when you copy.  VTL will suck just as bad as
regular tape w

Re: [Veritas-bu] Multiplexing Query

[Wayne T Smith]

and if you have "allow multiple data streams" selected for a policy, 
you'll probably have more than three jobs (and more than one drive used).

(Also, I'm unclear if you have 3 or 9 policies ... this and Ueli's 
responses are assuming you have no more than one policy for each client).

cheers, wayne

Ueli Schweizer wrote, in part,  on 2007-05-14 3:43 AM:
> Assuming the retention level is same for all three jobs NetBackup will
> multiplex all three jobs to one single tape.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ueli Schweizer
>
> -Original Message-
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dy018
>
> Would like to find out somemore info abt multiplexing using netbackup.
>
> Example.
> If i have 3 clients and 3 policies for each client using same storageunit
> and same volume pool.
> My storageunit have 3 drives and i set it to 3 concurrent drive write.
> The policies of the 3 client i set multiplexing to 3.
>
> Question
> If i trigger all 3 policy all at the same time. Does netbackup do 1 or 2
> assuming there are no other backup running from other media servers?
>
> 1. One drive will consolidate all 3 jobs to a single tape media?
>
> 2. One drive will be use for each job triggered, meaning the media server
> will use up all three drives with 3 tape media?
>
> Anyone have any idea?
>   
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] MP4 Re: Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to

[Darren Dunham]

> I believe the talldoode comment was about the dreaded vmquery
> -deassignbyid command, which can definitely shoot you in the foot. In
> recent versions, the command is still there, but it complains if you use
> it.

It does more than complain.  It does not process the request in many
situations.  Undoubtedly safer, but there are situations where it is the
right tool for the job, and where I am not yet certain of a good
workaround.

But then there are quite a few dangerous commands.  I'm just not certain
why anyone would be running -deassignbyid as opposed to any other bad
thing.  I don't recall seeing that command mentioned in the manuals as
something to do in any particular situation.
-- 
Darren Dunham   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper?   San Francisco, CA bay area
 < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] MP4 Re: Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to

[Curtis Preston]

Yeah, bpexpdate is the recommended way to do what you want.

I believe the talldoode comment was about the dreaded vmquery
-deassignbyid command, which can definitely shoot you in the foot. In
recent versions, the command is still there, but it complains if you use
it.

---
W. Curtis Preston
Author of O'Reilly's Backup & Recovery and Using SANs and NAS
VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren
Dunham
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 8:43 AM
To: Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] MP4 Re: Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1
MP4to

> No - it was just Dave talldoode statement about the way command were
> recommended to expire tapes. My question was about images so maybe
> bpexpdate will leave the catalog corrupted when it expires the tape.

bpexpdate expires images.  When you give a volume, it expires all copies
of images on that volume.  

When all images on a volume expire, the volume can be returned as
scratch.

A recommended command that causes catalog corruption would be a bad
idea.

-- 
Darren Dunham   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper?   San Francisco, CA bay area
 < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
___
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] Start NBU non-root

[Curtis Preston]

Unfortunately, running cgi commands as anything other than nobody or
apache is also considered dangerous.  

Sounds like you're screwed either way.

Have you taken a look at NetBackup Operations Manager?  It allows some
management functionality via the web.

---
W. Curtis Preston
Author of O'Reilly's Backup & Recovery and Using SANs and NAS
VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
McCammont, Anderson (IT)
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 5:57 AM
To: Clooney, David; Jeff Lightner; Jones, Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

I'm not sure what you want to achieve, but if you're looking to provide
a CGI script that exposes some netbackup functionality then I'd suggest
you  elevate the permissions of your CGI appropriately at the points
necessary, eg. by running the netbackup commands you care about from
within your CGI under sudo(8) or somesuch as suggested by another
poster.  This way Netbackup and Apache stay appropriately permissioned
and you retain control of the parts of your CGI script that get the
elevated rights. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Clooney, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 14 May 2007 13:16
> To: McCammont, Anderson (IT); Jeff Lightner; Jones, 
> Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> Much appreciated for your input Anderson,
> 
> Can you suggest a better scenario in which you would be able 
> to run NBU
> ,master/media server binaries to satisfy the requests 
> initiated through
> CGI ?
> 
> Dave
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: McCammont, Anderson (IT)
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 14 May 2007 12:55
> To: Clooney, David; Jeff Lightner; Jones, Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> Really, this is a bad idea.  Putting suid on code that you 
> don't own or
> haven't reviewed the source code of is a substantial security 
> exposure.
> You're not only not buying yourself anything (the executables would
> still be running with and effective UID of root), you're also exposing
> yourself to a large number of other issues - eg. binaries that would
> have normally run in the user's context are now running as 
> root, opening
> yourself up to much more vulnarability.  
> 
> If there's any belief that Nebackup is suitably secure that this is an
> acceptable risk, spend 10 minutes with fuser/lsof + 
> strace/truss and one
> will be very suspect of their socket code and handling of file
> descriptors (in 5.x at least - I can't speak to 6.x, anyone?).
> Alternatively look at some of the Netbackup security advisories
> published.  Note, that's for code they're expecting to run as root -
> you've no idea what you're exposing yourself to elsewhere in the
> application that you've just opened up.  Symantec wouldn't 
> condone this
> practise either I'm sure.   
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but you really are better running as root.
> That said, if all you're interested in is the client portion of
> Netbackup not running as root, AFAIK it's only using reserved 
> ports for
> outbound connections (that you could potentially turn off with
> CONNECT_OPTIONS in bp.conf) and if you've got read permission for all
> the files and ask NBU not to update the mtime/atime then I can't think
> what it may need to be root for, though I wouldn't be at all surprised
> to find out that it does.  It may be worth a call to support to
> determine why the client requires root if this is your usage case.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > Of Clooney, David
> > Sent: 14 May 2007 09:47
> > To: Jeff Lightner; Jones, Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
> > Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> > 
> > All,
> > 
> > Thanks for everyone's response, I eventually have setuid on 
> > the binaries
> > and changed the group on the binaries to that of the service account
> > being used by apache which all seems to work fine. 
> > 
> > Suppose the downfall and my vulnerability would lie in the 
> > exploitation
> > of netbackup.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: 11 May 2007 15:21
> > To: Jones, Courtenay; Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
> > Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> > 
> > I think his issue is that a PHB that doesn't understand 
> UNIX/Linux and
> > only (thinks he) knows that "root is bad" is trying to 
> eliminate root.
> > The issue isn't how it is starting but what user it is running as.
> > Since sudo would run it as root he'd still have the same 
> education of
> > PHB to do.
> > 
> > The reason it needs to be root is on

Re: [Veritas-bu] MP4 Re: Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to

[Darren Dunham]

> No - it was just Dave talldoode statement about the way command were
> recommended to expire tapes. My question was about images so maybe
> bpexpdate will leave the catalog corrupted when it expires the tape.

bpexpdate expires images.  When you give a volume, it expires all copies
of images on that volume.  

When all images on a volume expire, the volume can be returned as
scratch.

A recommended command that causes catalog corruption would be a bad
idea.

-- 
Darren Dunham   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/
Got some Dr Pepper?   San Francisco, CA bay area
 < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] MP4 Re: Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0

[Carl Mathews]

No - it was just Dave talldoode statement about the way command were
recommended to expire tapes. My question was about images so maybe
bpexpdate will leave the catalog corrupted when it expires the tape.

Dave said
"oh, just do this to expire that pesky tape" makes me cringe.

Thanks
Carl Mathews
University of Arkansas
--

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 23:54:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Darren Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>



That should do it.  Is there something that you're worried about?

--
Darren Dunham   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

> We are given the bpexpdate command to expire images.
> Many time that command has be recommended by the list.
> How should we expire images and keep the catalogs in sync?
> Does it take more then bpexpdate?

-- Forwarded message --
>From talldoode at cox.net  Thu May 10 14:17:55 2007
From: talldoode at cox.net (Dave)
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:17:55 -0700
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0
MP4

Read all of the replies and had to laugh. 90% of the problems that came
with
6.0 were because people didn't do their upgrades correctly and didn't RTFM
before pulling the trigger. They can only blame themselves, but hey, much
easier to blame the software instead of going to your boss and telling him
what you did wrong.



The upgrade from 5.x to 6.0 is very straightforward provided you read and
understand what you are doing. The main/critical/important thing is to
make sure your catalog is completely, 100% clean before you upgrade so the
new EMM database will properly populate. This means you are running the
NBCC utility, sending the data to Symantec Support, doing what they tell
you to do, running NBCC again, sending output to Support etc (or having
Consulting come help you). You may have to go back to support a number of
times to get this done but it will be worth it. The extensive use of
command line functionality without knowing what you are doing is the main
reason for the catalogs being out of sync for what it's worth. Some of the
things I read on this list about "oh, just do this to expire that pesky
tape" makes me cringe.



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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

[Jeff Lightner]

Of course this email appeared AFTER the link was sent even though it was sent 
before hand.  

 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Lightner
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:43 AM
To: WEAVER, Simon (external); Hampus Lind; Forester, Jack L; 
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

 

I didn't see a link there.   However we were also given to understand support 
would go away with release of 6.5.

 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER, Simon 
(external)
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:35 AM
To: 'Hampus Lind'; 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

 

Well not the best news to hear did expect 5.1 to be around until 2008 at 
least !

 

 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

-Original Message-
From: Hampus Lind [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 14 May 2007 15:23
To: 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; WEAVER, Simon
Subject: SV: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 
to6.0 MP4

Here you go... :-)

 

 

 

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 Forester, Jack L
Skickat: den 14 maj 2007 16:04
Till: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 
MP4

 

Argh...I  knew someone was going to ask me that.  I should have had 
that info ready.  I found the info on Veritas' site.  I'm looking for it again 
now.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 





From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:59 AM
To: Forester, Jack L; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 
to6.0 MP4

 

can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??

 

 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Forester, Jack L
Sent: 14 May 2007 14:49
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 
MP4 to6.0 MP4

Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in 
October.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Liddle, Stuart
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM
To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 
MP4 to 6.0 MP4

 

yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing

 

--stuart

 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Mike Wigington
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 
to 6.0 MP4

 

Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0 
MP4? 

TIA,
Mike Wig

 





Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. 

  

This email (including an

Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

[WEAVER, Simon (external)]

 

http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_DataCenter/279
039.pdf
 
Thanks to Paul for the link as well ..
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff
Lightner
Sent: 14 May 2007 15:43
To: WEAVER, Simon; Hampus Lind; Forester, Jack L;
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4



I didn't see a link there.   However we were also given to understand
support would go away with release of 6.5.

 


  _  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER,
Simon (external)
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:35 AM
To: 'Hampus Lind'; 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

 

Well not the best news to hear did expect 5.1 to be around until 2008 at
least !

 

 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Hampus Lind [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 14 May 2007 15:23
To: 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; WEAVER, Simon
Subject: SV: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0
MP4

Here you go... :-)

 

 

 

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 Forester, Jack L
Skickat: den 14 maj 2007 16:04
Till: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 MP4

 

Argh...I  knew someone was going to ask me that.  I should have had that
info ready.  I found the info on Veritas' site.  I'm looking for it again
now.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 


  _  


From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:59 AM
To: Forester, Jack L; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0
MP4

 

can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??

 

 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forester,
Jack L
Sent: 14 May 2007 14:49
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0
MP4

Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in October.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 


  _  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle,
Stuart
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM
To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0
MP4

 

yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing

 

--stuart

 


  _  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Wigington
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4

 

Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0 MP4? 

TIA,
Mike Wig

 


  _  


Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new
 cars
at Yahoo! Autos. 


This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately,
do not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any
purpose or disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and
any attachments from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if
this email transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified.
-
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS,
England

 

Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

[WEAVER, Simon (external)]

Bit gutted really as I have personally found 5.1 to be rock solid here at
both my sites!
 
Guess 6.5 is coming sooner than expected now then !?
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: 14 May 2007 15:42
To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4


http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_DataCenter/279
039.pdf
 
 
 
-- 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER,
Simon (external)
Sent: May 14, 2007 9:59 AM
To: 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4


can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [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.



This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, do 
not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any purpose or 
disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and any attachments 
from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if this email 
transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified.
-
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

[Jeff Lightner]

I didn't see a link there.   However we were also given to understand support 
would go away with release of 6.5.

 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER, Simon 
(external)
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 10:35 AM
To: 'Hampus Lind'; 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

 

Well not the best news to hear did expect 5.1 to be around until 2008 at 
least !

 

 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

-Original Message-
From: Hampus Lind [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 14 May 2007 15:23
To: 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; WEAVER, Simon
Subject: SV: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 
to6.0 MP4

Here you go... :-)

 

 

 

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 Forester, Jack L
Skickat: den 14 maj 2007 16:04
Till: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 
MP4

 

Argh...I  knew someone was going to ask me that.  I should have had 
that info ready.  I found the info on Veritas' site.  I'm looking for it again 
now.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 





From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:59 AM
To: Forester, Jack L; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 
to6.0 MP4

 

can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??

 

 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]  

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Forester, Jack L
Sent: 14 May 2007 14:49
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 
MP4 to6.0 MP4

Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in 
October.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Liddle, Stuart
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM
To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 
MP4 to 6.0 MP4

 

yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing

 

--stuart

 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
Mike Wigington
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 
to 6.0 MP4

 

Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0 
MP4? 

TIA,
Mike Wig

 





Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. 

  

This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, do 
not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any purpose or 
disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and any attachments 
from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability

Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4to6.0 MP4

[Paul Keating]

http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_DataCenter
/279039.pdf
 
 
-- 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER,
Simon (external)
Sent: May 14, 2007 9:59 AM
To: 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1
MP4to6.0 MP4


can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email: [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] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 MP4

[WEAVER, Simon (external)]

Well not the best news to hear did expect 5.1 to be around until 2008 at
least !
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Hampus Lind [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 14 May 2007 15:23
To: 'Forester, Jack L'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; WEAVER, Simon
Subject: SV: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0
MP4



Here you go... :-)

 

 

 

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 Forester, Jack L
Skickat: den 14 maj 2007 16:04
Till: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Ämne: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 MP4

 

Argh...I  knew someone was going to ask me that.  I should have had that
info ready.  I found the info on Veritas' site.  I'm looking for it again
now.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 


  _  


From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:59 AM
To: Forester, Jack L; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0
MP4

 

can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??

 

 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forester,
Jack L
Sent: 14 May 2007 14:49
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0
MP4

Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in October.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 


  _  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle,
Stuart
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM
To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0
MP4

 

yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing

 

--stuart

 


  _  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Wigington
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4

 

Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0 MP4? 

TIA,
Mike Wig

 


  _  


Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new
 cars
at Yahoo! Autos. 

This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately,
do not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any
purpose or disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and
any attachments from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if
this email transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified.
-
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS,
England




This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, do 
not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any purpose or 
disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and any attachments 
from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if this email 
transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified.
-
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 MP4

[Forester, Jack L]

Argh...I  knew someone was going to ask me that.  I should have had that
info ready.  I found the info on Veritas' site.  I'm looking for it
again now.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 



From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:59 AM
To: Forester, Jack L; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4
to6.0 MP4

 

can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??

 

 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Forester, Jack L
Sent: 14 May 2007 14:49
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1
MP4 to6.0 MP4

Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in
October.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle,
Stuart
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM
To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1
MP4 to 6.0 MP4

 

yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing

 

--stuart

 





From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Wigington
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4
to 6.0 MP4

 

Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0
MP4? 

TIA,
Mike Wig

 





Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
  

This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
privileged information or information otherwise protected from
disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
sender immediately, do not copy this message or any attachments and do
not use it for any purpose or disclose its content to any person, but
delete this message and any attachments from your system. Astrium
disclaims any and all liability if this email transmission was virus
corrupted, altered or falsified.
-
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS,
England

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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 MP4

[WEAVER, Simon (external)]

can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ??
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forester,
Jack L
Sent: 14 May 2007 14:49
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0
MP4



Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in October.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 


  _  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle,
Stuart
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM
To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0
MP4

 

yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing

 

--stuart

 


  _  


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Wigington
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4

 

Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0 MP4? 

TIA,
Mike Wig

 


  _  


Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new
 cars
at Yahoo! Autos. 



This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or 
privileged information or information otherwise protected from disclosure. If 
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately, do 
not copy this message or any attachments and do not use it for any purpose or 
disclose its content to any person, but delete this message and any attachments 
from your system. Astrium disclaims any and all liability if this email 
transmission was virus corrupted, altered or falsified.
-
Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4

[Forester, Jack L]

Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in October.

 

Jack L. Forester, Jr.
UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
(304) 625-3946 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle,
Stuart
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM
To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to
6.0 MP4

 

yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing

 

--stuart

 



From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike
Wigington
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0
MP4

 

Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0 MP4? 

TIA,
Mike Wig

 



Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
  

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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

[McCammont, Anderson (IT)]

I'm not sure what you want to achieve, but if you're looking to provide
a CGI script that exposes some netbackup functionality then I'd suggest
you  elevate the permissions of your CGI appropriately at the points
necessary, eg. by running the netbackup commands you care about from
within your CGI under sudo(8) or somesuch as suggested by another
poster.  This way Netbackup and Apache stay appropriately permissioned
and you retain control of the parts of your CGI script that get the
elevated rights. 

> -Original Message-
> From: Clooney, David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 14 May 2007 13:16
> To: McCammont, Anderson (IT); Jeff Lightner; Jones, 
> Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> Much appreciated for your input Anderson,
> 
> Can you suggest a better scenario in which you would be able 
> to run NBU
> ,master/media server binaries to satisfy the requests 
> initiated through
> CGI ?
> 
> Dave
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: McCammont, Anderson (IT)
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 14 May 2007 12:55
> To: Clooney, David; Jeff Lightner; Jones, Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> Really, this is a bad idea.  Putting suid on code that you 
> don't own or
> haven't reviewed the source code of is a substantial security 
> exposure.
> You're not only not buying yourself anything (the executables would
> still be running with and effective UID of root), you're also exposing
> yourself to a large number of other issues - eg. binaries that would
> have normally run in the user's context are now running as 
> root, opening
> yourself up to much more vulnarability.  
> 
> If there's any belief that Nebackup is suitably secure that this is an
> acceptable risk, spend 10 minutes with fuser/lsof + 
> strace/truss and one
> will be very suspect of their socket code and handling of file
> descriptors (in 5.x at least - I can't speak to 6.x, anyone?).
> Alternatively look at some of the Netbackup security advisories
> published.  Note, that's for code they're expecting to run as root -
> you've no idea what you're exposing yourself to elsewhere in the
> application that you've just opened up.  Symantec wouldn't 
> condone this
> practise either I'm sure.   
> 
> Sorry for the rant, but you really are better running as root.
> That said, if all you're interested in is the client portion of
> Netbackup not running as root, AFAIK it's only using reserved 
> ports for
> outbound connections (that you could potentially turn off with
> CONNECT_OPTIONS in bp.conf) and if you've got read permission for all
> the files and ask NBU not to update the mtime/atime then I can't think
> what it may need to be root for, though I wouldn't be at all surprised
> to find out that it does.  It may be worth a call to support to
> determine why the client requires root if this is your usage case.
> 
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> > Of Clooney, David
> > Sent: 14 May 2007 09:47
> > To: Jeff Lightner; Jones, Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
> > Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> > 
> > All,
> > 
> > Thanks for everyone's response, I eventually have setuid on 
> > the binaries
> > and changed the group on the binaries to that of the service account
> > being used by apache which all seems to work fine. 
> > 
> > Suppose the downfall and my vulnerability would lie in the 
> > exploitation
> > of netbackup.
> > 
> > Regards
> > 
> > Dave
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > Sent: 11 May 2007 15:21
> > To: Jones, Courtenay; Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
> > Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> > 
> > I think his issue is that a PHB that doesn't understand 
> UNIX/Linux and
> > only (thinks he) knows that "root is bad" is trying to 
> eliminate root.
> > The issue isn't how it is starting but what user it is running as.
> > Since sudo would run it as root he'd still have the same 
> education of
> > PHB to do.
> > 
> > The reason it needs to be root is only root can read ALL 
> files.   Even
> > if it is a master it is assumed it would be backing itself up so
> > Veritas/Symantec had no reason to write in the ability to run it as
> > anything other than root even on a "master only" server.
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On 
> Behalf Of Jones,
> > Courtenay
> > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:44 AM
> > To: Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
> > Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> > 
> > Could you use sudo functionality? 
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> >  
> > -cj
> > Courtenay Jones
> > UNIX Systems Engineer, Raleigh Technolog

Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

[Clooney, David]

Much appreciated for your input Anderson,

Can you suggest a better scenario in which you would be able to run NBU
,master/media server binaries to satisfy the requests initiated through
CGI ?

Dave

-Original Message-
From: McCammont, Anderson (IT)
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 14 May 2007 12:55
To: Clooney, David; Jeff Lightner; Jones, Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

Really, this is a bad idea.  Putting suid on code that you don't own or
haven't reviewed the source code of is a substantial security exposure.
You're not only not buying yourself anything (the executables would
still be running with and effective UID of root), you're also exposing
yourself to a large number of other issues - eg. binaries that would
have normally run in the user's context are now running as root, opening
yourself up to much more vulnarability.  

If there's any belief that Nebackup is suitably secure that this is an
acceptable risk, spend 10 minutes with fuser/lsof + strace/truss and one
will be very suspect of their socket code and handling of file
descriptors (in 5.x at least - I can't speak to 6.x, anyone?).
Alternatively look at some of the Netbackup security advisories
published.  Note, that's for code they're expecting to run as root -
you've no idea what you're exposing yourself to elsewhere in the
application that you've just opened up.  Symantec wouldn't condone this
practise either I'm sure.   

Sorry for the rant, but you really are better running as root.
That said, if all you're interested in is the client portion of
Netbackup not running as root, AFAIK it's only using reserved ports for
outbound connections (that you could potentially turn off with
CONNECT_OPTIONS in bp.conf) and if you've got read permission for all
the files and ask NBU not to update the mtime/atime then I can't think
what it may need to be root for, though I wouldn't be at all surprised
to find out that it does.  It may be worth a call to support to
determine why the client requires root if this is your usage case.


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Clooney, David
> Sent: 14 May 2007 09:47
> To: Jeff Lightner; Jones, Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> All,
> 
> Thanks for everyone's response, I eventually have setuid on 
> the binaries
> and changed the group on the binaries to that of the service account
> being used by apache which all seems to work fine. 
> 
> Suppose the downfall and my vulnerability would lie in the 
> exploitation
> of netbackup.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 11 May 2007 15:21
> To: Jones, Courtenay; Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> I think his issue is that a PHB that doesn't understand UNIX/Linux and
> only (thinks he) knows that "root is bad" is trying to eliminate root.
> The issue isn't how it is starting but what user it is running as.
> Since sudo would run it as root he'd still have the same education of
> PHB to do.
> 
> The reason it needs to be root is only root can read ALL files.   Even
> if it is a master it is assumed it would be backing itself up so
> Veritas/Symantec had no reason to write in the ability to run it as
> anything other than root even on a "master only" server.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jones,
> Courtenay
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:44 AM
> To: Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> Could you use sudo functionality? 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> -cj
> Courtenay Jones
> UNIX Systems Engineer, Raleigh Technology Centre
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Clooney,
> David
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:42 AM
> To: Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> Thanks Justin,
> 
> Well I guess that's that then :-)
> 
> Dave
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 11 May 2007 10:40
> To: Clooney, David
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> NBU requires root.  End of story really.
> 
> Justin.
> 
> On Fri, 11 May 2007, Clooney, David wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Scenario:  Linux RD 3 5.1 MP6
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know if its possible to start netbackup as non 
> root? Know
> it
> > sounds strange however this server is used merely for info retrieval
> > from other masters through CGI, currently policy specifies 
> that apache
> > cannot be started as root understandably for security reaso

Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

[McCammont, Anderson (IT)]

Really, this is a bad idea.  Putting suid on code that you don't own or
haven't reviewed the source code of is a substantial security exposure.
You're not only not buying yourself anything (the executables would
still be running with and effective UID of root), you're also exposing
yourself to a large number of other issues - eg. binaries that would
have normally run in the user's context are now running as root, opening
yourself up to much more vulnarability.  

If there's any belief that Nebackup is suitably secure that this is an
acceptable risk, spend 10 minutes with fuser/lsof + strace/truss and one
will be very suspect of their socket code and handling of file
descriptors (in 5.x at least - I can't speak to 6.x, anyone?).
Alternatively look at some of the Netbackup security advisories
published.  Note, that's for code they're expecting to run as root -
you've no idea what you're exposing yourself to elsewhere in the
application that you've just opened up.  Symantec wouldn't condone this
practise either I'm sure.   

Sorry for the rant, but you really are better running as root.
That said, if all you're interested in is the client portion of
Netbackup not running as root, AFAIK it's only using reserved ports for
outbound connections (that you could potentially turn off with
CONNECT_OPTIONS in bp.conf) and if you've got read permission for all
the files and ask NBU not to update the mtime/atime then I can't think
what it may need to be root for, though I wouldn't be at all surprised
to find out that it does.  It may be worth a call to support to
determine why the client requires root if this is your usage case.


> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Clooney, David
> Sent: 14 May 2007 09:47
> To: Jeff Lightner; Jones, Courtenay; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> All,
> 
> Thanks for everyone's response, I eventually have setuid on 
> the binaries
> and changed the group on the binaries to that of the service account
> being used by apache which all seems to work fine. 
> 
> Suppose the downfall and my vulnerability would lie in the 
> exploitation
> of netbackup.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 11 May 2007 15:21
> To: Jones, Courtenay; Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> I think his issue is that a PHB that doesn't understand UNIX/Linux and
> only (thinks he) knows that "root is bad" is trying to eliminate root.
> The issue isn't how it is starting but what user it is running as.
> Since sudo would run it as root he'd still have the same education of
> PHB to do.
> 
> The reason it needs to be root is only root can read ALL files.   Even
> if it is a master it is assumed it would be backing itself up so
> Veritas/Symantec had no reason to write in the ability to run it as
> anything other than root even on a "master only" server.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jones,
> Courtenay
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:44 AM
> To: Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> Could you use sudo functionality? 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
>  
> -cj
> Courtenay Jones
> UNIX Systems Engineer, Raleigh Technology Centre
> 
> 
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
> Of Clooney,
> David
> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:42 AM
> To: Justin Piszcz
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> Thanks Justin,
> 
> Well I guess that's that then :-)
> 
> Dave
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 11 May 2007 10:40
> To: Clooney, David
> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root
> 
> NBU requires root.  End of story really.
> 
> Justin.
> 
> On Fri, 11 May 2007, Clooney, David wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Scenario:  Linux RD 3 5.1 MP6
> >
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know if its possible to start netbackup as non 
> root? Know
> it
> > sounds strange however this server is used merely for info retrieval
> > from other masters through CGI, currently policy specifies 
> that apache
> > cannot be started as root understandably for security reasons.
> >
> >
> >
> > If I could start NBU as the same user as what apache does, it would
> make
> > my life a lot easier ?
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > This email (including any attachments) may contain 
> confidential and/or
> > privileged information or information otherwise protected from
> > disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> > sender immediately, do not copy this message or any 
> attachments 

[Veritas-bu] Re: Multiplexing Query

[dy018]

hey thanks Ueli Schweizer for the clarification.

:)





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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup

[WEAVER, Simon (external)]

Ive sent out 2 links that should be worth a read - more so for the Exchange
Admin guru :-)
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of K Chapman
Sent: 11 May 2007 18:45
To: Anas Kayal; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


stopped brick level several years ago (when recov mgr was by aelita).  if
you have the tape tech to handle a few steams that may be of value to you or
use a disk target.  is there any regulatory/compliance/business req that you
have no choice but to keep doing it?

also, is your exch info store 1 big store or is it broken up into a few db's
or split among a few servers?

 
aaarrrggghhh
FreeBSD rocks 


- Original Message 
From: Anas Kayal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: K Chapman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 1:19:52 PM
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


Im also running Ex2K3 and have about 900 mailboxes. The slowness is killing
my backup window since it takes 11 hours. I'm looking into Quest Recovery
Manger now. So you don't use NBU for your mailboxes at all??
 
Also should I be running multistreaming?

  _  

From: K Chapman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Fri 5/11/2007 10:42 AM
To: Anas Kayal; WEAVER, Simon (external); Martin, Jonathan; Paul Keating;
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


for a single stream for mb's your doing well.  consider alt routes for
mailbox/message recovery.  the tools with exch may be of value (if you are
2003 or greater).  the quest recov mgr  for exch (keep hawking it, used it
to recover 8 mailboxes yesterday and several last week) has been great,
wasnt too expansive (we have 1000 mailboxes).  im sure others may have
suggestions as well.

your time range is what we were hitting when we were on 5.5 and we have now
increased db size and exch serv count by 500%, so im glad we stopped with
brick level exch jobs.

 
aaarrrggghhh
FreeBSD rocks 


- Original Message 
From: Anas Kayal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WEAVER, Simon (external)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Martin,
Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Paul Keating
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 11:38:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


Well first of all data is located on the local exchange machine. Backups are
running on gigabit Ethernet and the max KBps I get is around 6400. The
policy setup is using MS Exchange and I selected MS EXCHANGE MAILBOX from
the directives set. I don't know what recovery storage groups are since im
not responsible for exchange and if my exchange guy knew about it he
should've told me bit I guess he doesn't. what can I do with that? 
 
Currently I have no SAN. We are still in the process of evaluating what we
need. It takes almost 11 hours to backup my full mailbox store. Info_Store
backups are fast at around 40MBps. I have no mutliplexing/multistreaming
configured on this policy. Would it make a difference for exchange? If so,
what should the settings be given I have a Hp MSL6060 Tape Lib with to LTO3
drives?

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of WEAVER, Simon
(external)
Sent: Thu 5/10/2007 11:20 PM
To: 'Martin, Jonathan'; Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


Jonathan wrote: I haven't done a brick level backup of Exchange since I
learned about Recovery Storage Groups
 
Well that makes more sense, because I have never, ever seen any performance
increase of BLB regardless of the hardware involved, the spindles involved,
fiber, tape technology. And the originator was specifically asking about the
backup type "BLB".
 
BLB are slow, slow slow! and should be avoided - as I pointed out in an
earlier thread, Ex2k3 offers ALOT more functionaility for you to move away
from this type of backup.
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin,
Jonathan
Sent: 10 May 2007 21:18
To: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


I'd tell you I've got the magic voodoo over here Paul, but then you'd want
it.  And If I'm gonna give up the goods I'd better get dinner and dancing
first. =P
 
Our Exchange Fulls running by themselves over GigE to a DSSU sitting around
doing nothing else does about 100MB/sec, until it hits the logs.  Even then,
its very fast but the average time rounds out to 80MB/sec, still
respectable.  My f

Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup

[WEAVER, Simon (external)]

Anas
speedwise, based on the setup you have, the speed and bp/sec seems to be ok
- but if your Exchange Administrator does not know about storage recovery
groups or Data Retention on Deleted Mailboxes, you may want to consider a
new Exchange Administrator.
 
Maybe have a chat with him, explain that the best method of backing up and
recovering Exchange is via the Information Store Backups.
 
Also, he may wish to read these:
 
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823176
  - Recover Mailboxes in Exchange
2003
 
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/824126
  - Use of Recovery Storage Groups
in Exchange 2003.
 
PLEASE REMEMBER: Nothing is aimed at any criticism of yourself - at the end
of the day, you are doing what you have been asked. But I know most Exchange
Administrators within a large company would steer clear of Mailbox Backups.
 
Exchange 2003 has built in features to help move away from this task. Also,
recoverying single mailboxes via BLB is SLOW - especially compared to the
settings built in within Exchange 2003.
 
Good Luck :-) Hope the links are of some assistance
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: Anas Kayal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 May 2007 16:38
To: WEAVER, Simon; Martin, Jonathan; Paul Keating;
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


Well first of all data is located on the local exchange machine. Backups are
running on gigabit Ethernet and the max KBps I get is around 6400. The
policy setup is using MS Exchange and I selected MS EXCHANGE MAILBOX from
the directives set. I don't know what recovery storage groups are since im
not responsible for exchange and if my exchange guy knew about it he
should've told me bit I guess he doesn't. what can I do with that? 
 
Currently I have no SAN. We are still in the process of evaluating what we
need. It takes almost 11 hours to backup my full mailbox store. Info_Store
backups are fast at around 40MBps. I have no mutliplexing/multistreaming
configured on this policy. Would it make a difference for exchange? If so,
what should the settings be given I have a Hp MSL6060 Tape Lib with to LTO3
drives?

  _  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of WEAVER, Simon
(external)
Sent: Thu 5/10/2007 11:20 PM
To: 'Martin, Jonathan'; Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


Jonathan wrote: I haven't done a brick level backup of Exchange since I
learned about Recovery Storage Groups
 
Well that makes more sense, because I have never, ever seen any performance
increase of BLB regardless of the hardware involved, the spindles involved,
fiber, tape technology. And the originator was specifically asking about the
backup type "BLB".
 
BLB are slow, slow slow! and should be avoided - as I pointed out in an
earlier thread, Ex2k3 offers ALOT more functionaility for you to move away
from this type of backup.
 
 

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email:   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin,
Jonathan
Sent: 10 May 2007 21:18
To: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Exchange Mailbox Backup


I'd tell you I've got the magic voodoo over here Paul, but then you'd want
it.  And If I'm gonna give up the goods I'd better get dinner and dancing
first. =P
 
Our Exchange Fulls running by themselves over GigE to a DSSU sitting around
doing nothing else does about 100MB/sec, until it hits the logs.  Even then,
its very fast but the average time rounds out to 80MB/sec, still
respectable.  My fastest backup until that point was a Redhat 3 /  Oracle 9
Database at 55MB/sec (give or take Archive logs.)  In my Exchange case, the
secret has been number of spindles and drive speeds on the SAN.  We did
serious I/O testing on the Exchange server's storage and went for
performance all the way.  I think each storage group and logs are their own
8 disk raid5 w/ 146GB 15K FC drives in a Hitatchi SAN.  Surprisingly, I got
a Sun StorEdge 5320 running remote NDMP backups to LTO3 at 100MB/sec first
try, yesterday!  That was purely test data, and it remains to be seen if it
will maintain that after we load up terabytes of data.  (I don't manage the
SAN or the NAS, so all my secret sauce is definitely someone else's.)
 
I haven't done a brick level backup of Exchange since I learned about
Recovery Storage Groups, and that was on Arcserve, or whatever it was called
before CA bought it.  That was the 90's and all my memories from the 90's
are bad, so lets n

Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

[Clooney, David]

All,

Thanks for everyone's response, I eventually have setuid on the binaries
and changed the group on the binaries to that of the service account
being used by apache which all seems to work fine. 

Suppose the downfall and my vulnerability would lie in the exploitation
of netbackup.

Regards

Dave




-Original Message-
From: Jeff Lightner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 May 2007 15:21
To: Jones, Courtenay; Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

I think his issue is that a PHB that doesn't understand UNIX/Linux and
only (thinks he) knows that "root is bad" is trying to eliminate root.
The issue isn't how it is starting but what user it is running as.
Since sudo would run it as root he'd still have the same education of
PHB to do.

The reason it needs to be root is only root can read ALL files.   Even
if it is a master it is assumed it would be backing itself up so
Veritas/Symantec had no reason to write in the ability to run it as
anything other than root even on a "master only" server.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jones,
Courtenay
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 9:44 AM
To: Clooney, David; Justin Piszcz
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

Could you use sudo functionality? 


Regards,

 
-cj
Courtenay Jones
UNIX Systems Engineer, Raleigh Technology Centre



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clooney,
David
Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 5:42 AM
To: Justin Piszcz
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

Thanks Justin,

Well I guess that's that then :-)

Dave

-Original Message-
From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 11 May 2007 10:40
To: Clooney, David
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Start NBU non-root

NBU requires root.  End of story really.

Justin.

On Fri, 11 May 2007, Clooney, David wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Scenario:  Linux RD 3 5.1 MP6
>
>
>
> Does anyone know if its possible to start netbackup as non root? Know
it
> sounds strange however this server is used merely for info retrieval
> from other masters through CGI, currently policy specifies that apache
> cannot be started as root understandably for security reasons.
>
>
>
> If I could start NBU as the same user as what apache does, it would
make
> my life a lot easier ?
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Dave
>
> This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or
> privileged information or information otherwise protected from
> disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately, do not copy this message or any attachments and do
> not use it for any purpose or disclose its content to any person, but
> delete this message and any attachments from your system. Astrium
> disclaims any and all liability if this email transmission was virus
> corrupted, altered or falsified.
> -
> Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
> Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1
2AS,
> England
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>



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 a

Re: [Veritas-bu] Multiplexing Query

[Ueli Schweizer]

Assuming the retention level is same for all three jobs NetBackup will
multiplex all three jobs to one single tape.

Cheers

Ueli Schweizer
AGITE Software
Zurich . West Palm Beach . London 
Swiss Headquarter:
AGITE Software AG . Boesch 43 . CH-6331 Huenenberg . Switzerland
Direct: +41 79 204 9190 . Phone: +41 41 781 5678 . Fax: +41 41 781 5677
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . http://www.AGITE-Software.com 

backupVISUAL ...
  ... we make life on backup easy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dy018
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 7:42 AM
To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Multiplexing Query


Hi all,

Would like to find out somemore info abt multiplexing using netbackup.

Example.
If i have 3 clients and 3 policies for each client using same storageunit
and same volume pool.
My storageunit have 3 drives and i set it to 3 concurrent drive write.
The policies of the 3 client i set multiplexing to 3.

Question
If i trigger all 3 policy all at the same time. Does netbackup do 1 or 2
assuming there are no other backup running from other media servers?

1. One drive will consolidate all 3 jobs to a single tape media?

2. One drive will be use for each job triggered, meaning the media server
will use up all three drives with 3 tape media?

Anyone have any idea?





___
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