[Veritas-bu] who has deleted or de-activated a policy?
Is there a any way to determine who has deleted or de-activated a policy? We are running Netbackup 6.0 MP 4. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] trunked/bonded Ethernet cards
Guys, Approximate config: Solaris 10 media server with trunked quad gige ethernet card for incoming traffic Need to know what do you see in terms of performance on the trunked ethernet channel: low/high and sustained MB throughput any tips or recommendation would be greatly appreciated! Thanks so much in advance! Oleg ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Type 84 errors on NDMP backups on 6.0MP5
I upgraded to 6.0MP5 a few weeks ago to fix the notorious pempersist problem where NetBackup refused to run any of my scheduled policies or let me manually start backups. I had been running 6.0MP4 because MP5 had a bug that caused all of my NDMP backups to fail and to get things running I had to install MP5 and then install some super duper secret binaries for bptm and bpdbm. This fixed the problem with jobs not scheduling although I am still seeing the occasional type 41 error on my hot catalog backups, which is a symptom of the pempersist problem. This weekend I started getting type 84 errors on some of my NDMP backups with the error message: Error bptm(pid=13699) FREEZING media id XX, too many data blocks written, check tape/driver block size configuration error. Searching for this on Google produced the following web page: http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/295172.htm ETrack: 117380 Description: NDMP backup using TIR - positioning error - bptm does not advance expected_block_pos[TWIN_INDEX] if bytes_this_buf == 0 Has anyone else had any experience with this? I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with NetBackup 6.0. There are nice new features that I love, such as hot catalog backups and the ability to queue vault jobs, but for every feature I like there's a bug that I really hate, such as the NDMP problems in 6.0MP5, the pempersist problem in every 6.0 release and now this. It's especially annoying since I'm not using TIR in any of my NDMP policies. Indeed as far as I can tell it's not even an option for an NDMP policy type backup. Looking at the webpage listed above is depressing since the page was apparently last updated on the 23rd of January, 2008, yet contains this sentence "This issue is currently being considered by Symantec Corporation to be addressed in a forthcoming Maintenance Pack or version of the product. The fix for this issue is expected to be released in the fourth quarter of 2007." I have this nightmare that I'm going to have to restore some crucial bit of corporate data and I'm not going to be able to. Then Symantec will post an eTrack notice saying "Oh yeah, we found this bug in the version of NetBackup that you're running that causes it to expire all of your backup images, run 'rm -rf' on all of your disk based storage units, relabel all of the tapes in your library and then overwrite your catalog with zeros. Don't worry though, we're working on a fix that should be out at some date that's well in the past." Jamie Jamison ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Error Storagetek L700 installation on AIX
I can do that only if robot is visible on the OS ... issue is it is not I am looking ar following possiblities 1 ) There is some package devices.fcp.changer that i would have get installed in AIX .. 2) The firware of the Library ( L700 ) needs to be upgraded. 3) Or there is some other 1 Regards K.O Kurian (Embedded image moved to file: pic20281.jpg) IBM India Private Limited (+91-9810912456 | *: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project Office: A14,Sec 62,NOIDA, U.P - 201301, India Our Mission : Proactive, Pre-emptive & Predictive operations environment, by automating day-to-day tasks. Go out of the way and extend support with a smile "Marianne Van Den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To .co.za> Kurian K Oommen/India/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc 02/10/2008 12:02 AMSubject RE: [Veritas-bu] Error Storagetek L700 installation on AIX You need to do 'mkdev ... ovpass 'as per the Device Configuration Guide. Marianne -Original Message- From: Kurian K Oommen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 February 2008 17:20 To: Marianne Van Den Berg Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Error Storagetek L700 installation on AIX Yes ... i'm trying to but not able to get the robot in OS. We have a Master Server ( with OS AIX ) andIBM 3584 Libraries ars installed and backups are being taken on them. Issue : We ar trying to install a Storagetek L700 Library . After connecting the Library and running cfgmgr - v , I encounter the below error cfgmgr: 0514-621 WARNING: The following device packages are required for device support but are not currently installed. devices.fcp.changer Configuration time: 20 seconds Drives ar visible on OS as below TPAC60 QUANTUM SuperDLT1 5353 CXB44H0291 -1 -1 -1 -1 /dev/rmt36.1 - - TPAC60 QUANTUM SuperDLT1 5353 CXB46H1473 -1 -1 -1 -1 /dev/rmt37.1 - - TPAC60 QUANTUM SuperDLT1 5353 PMC09H0019 -1 -1 -1 -1 /dev/rmt38.1 - - TPAC60 QUANTUM SuperDLT1 5353 PMC04H0168 -1 -1 -1 -1 /dev/rmt39.1 - - TPAC60 QUANTUM SuperDLT1 5353 PMC01H0932 -1 -1 -1 -1 /dev/rmt40.1 - - but Robot is not visible on OS Yes Regards K.O Kurian (Embedded image moved to file: pic17153.jpg) IBM India Private Limited (+91-9810912456 | *: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project Office: A14,Sec 62,NOIDA, U.P - 201301, India Our Mission : Proactive, Pre-emptive & Predictive operations environment, by automating day-to-day tasks. Go out of the way and extend support with a smile "Marianne Van Den Berg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] To .co.za> Kurian K Oommen/India/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc 02/08/2008 05:25 PMSubject RE: [Veritas-bu] Error Storagetek L700 installation on AIX Hi Have you followed the steps in MediaMgr_DeviceConfig_Guide.pdf? Marianne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kurian K Oommen Sent: 08 February 2008 09:48 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Error Storagetek L700 installation on AIX Dear All I am L700 Storagetek library on AIX5.3 and encountering the below error for cfgmgr... cfgmgr: 0514-621 WARNING: The following device packages are required for device support but are not currently installed. devices.fcp.changer Thanks. Regards K.O Kurian ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/verita
Re: [Veritas-bu] Drive addressing in SL8500 library
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Justin Piszcz wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Forester, Jack L wrote: > >> Greetings, everyone... >> >> I'm getting ready to replace a StorageTek Powderhorn 9310 library with >> an SL8500 library very soon. I was wondering how NetBackup handles >> drive addressing in the SL8500. With the 9310, drives were addressed by >> ACS,LSM,Panel,Drive whereas with the SL8500 the address contains 5 >> components - Library,Rail,Column,Side,Row. Since the value of 'side' is >> always 1 as the drives are on the outer wall, is this value simply not >> used when configuring the drives in NetBackup, or can NetBackup accept >> all 5 components of the address? >> >> Jack L. Forester, Jr. >> UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf >> Lockheed Martin Information Technology >> (304) 625-3946 >> >> ___ >> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu >> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu >> > > The SL8500 uses; acs,lsm,panel,drive. > > Justin. > Here is an example, this media server has 4 drives attached to it: Id DriveName Type Residence Drive Path Status 0 Drive04hcart3 ACS(0) ACS=0, LSM=3, PANEL=1, DRIVE=3 /dev/st/nh0c0t0l0UP 1 Drive08hcart3 ACS(0) ACS=0, LSM=3, PANEL=1, DRIVE=2 /dev/st/nh1c0t0l0UP 2 Drive20hcart3 ACS(0) ACS=0, LSM=2, PANEL=1, DRIVE=3 /dev/st/nh2c0t0l0UP 3 Drive24hcart3 ACS(0) ACS=0, LSM=2, PANEL=1, DRIVE=2 /dev/st/nh3c0t0l0UP You would configure as follows: /usr/openv/volmgr/bin/tpconfig -update -robot 0 -drive 3 -robtype acs -ACS 0 -LSM 2 -PANEL 1 -DRIVE 2 ; /usr/openv/volmgr/bin/tpconfig -update -drive 3 -newasciiname Drive24 /usr/openv/volmgr/bin/tpconfig -update -robot 0 -drive 2 -robtype acs -ACS 0 -LSM 2 -PANEL 1 -DRIVE 3 ; /usr/openv/volmgr/bin/tpconfig -update -drive 2 -newasciiname Drive20 /usr/openv/volmgr/bin/tpconfig -update -robot 0 -drive 1 -robtype acs -ACS 0 -LSM 3 -PANEL 1 -DRIVE 2 ; /usr/openv/volmgr/bin/tpconfig -update -drive 1 -newasciiname Drive08 /usr/openv/volmgr/bin/tpconfig -update -robot 0 -drive 0 -robtype acs -ACS 0 -LSM 3 -PANEL 1 -DRIVE 3 ; /usr/openv/volmgr/bin/tpconfig -update -drive 0 -newasciiname Drive04 Justin. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Drive addressing in SL8500 library
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Forester, Jack L wrote: > Greetings, everyone... > > I'm getting ready to replace a StorageTek Powderhorn 9310 library with > an SL8500 library very soon. I was wondering how NetBackup handles > drive addressing in the SL8500. With the 9310, drives were addressed by > ACS,LSM,Panel,Drive whereas with the SL8500 the address contains 5 > components - Library,Rail,Column,Side,Row. Since the value of 'side' is > always 1 as the drives are on the outer wall, is this value simply not > used when configuring the drives in NetBackup, or can NetBackup accept > all 5 components of the address? > > Jack L. Forester, Jr. > UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf > Lockheed Martin Information Technology > (304) 625-3946 > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > The SL8500 uses; acs,lsm,panel,drive. Justin. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Drive addressing in SL8500 library
Greetings, everyone... I'm getting ready to replace a StorageTek Powderhorn 9310 library with an SL8500 library very soon. I was wondering how NetBackup handles drive addressing in the SL8500. With the 9310, drives were addressed by ACS,LSM,Panel,Drive whereas with the SL8500 the address contains 5 components - Library,Rail,Column,Side,Row. Since the value of 'side' is always 1 as the drives are on the outer wall, is this value simply not used when configuring the drives in NetBackup, or can NetBackup accept all 5 components of the address? Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96
Check to see that the media type is hcart2 and that the storage unit is hcart2 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bnetra Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 1:16 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 Using NBU 6.0MP4 on Windows. While executing a manual backup NBU is giving Status 96 error "unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available (96)". I ran the media list and found that there are enough volumes available under this policy volume pool. Where is the problem? What is the solution? Thanks in advance. BNetra +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu __ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and review by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you. _ ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Status 96
but bpmedia show the tapes as empty and i thought it should delete info when placed into the scatch pool? Preston, Douglas L wrote: > > > From the log entries I would say from experience that it looks like your > > > media are full. > > Doug Preston > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of amure1 > Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:52 AM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 > > > Since the service restart there are quiet a few new errors (below has > been edditied) > > 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource > tedc-xn-nbm01.NBU_CLIENT.MAXJOBS.bkupXX > 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource > tedc-xn-nbm01.NBU_POLICY.MAXJOBS.TEDC-PREPAID > 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource XX.NBU_CLIENT.MAXJOBS.YY > 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource XX.NBU_POLICY.MAXJOBS.YY > 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource 0025JB > 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 > 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource 0002JB > 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.003 > 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - started process bpbrm (2564) > 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - connecting > 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - connected; connect time: 00:00:00 > 11/02/2008 16:22:13 - mounting 0025JB > 11/02/2008 16:22:18 - current media 0025JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource 0010JB > 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 > 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:22:28 - mounting 0010JB > 11/02/2008 16:22:34 - current media 0010JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource 0013JB > 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.001 > 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:22:44 - mounting 0013JB > 11/02/2008 16:22:52 - current media 0013JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource 0028JB > 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 > 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:23:02 - mounting 0028JB > 11/02/2008 16:23:15 - current media 0028JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource 0032JB > 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 > 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:23:30 - mounting 0032JB > 11/02/2008 16:23:36 - current media 0032JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource 0049JB > 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.001 > 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:23:46 - mounting 0049JB > 11/02/2008 16:23:53 - current media 0049JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource 0058JB > 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 > 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:24:08 - mounting 0058JB > 11/02/2008 16:24:18 - current media 0058JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource 0087JB > 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 > 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 > 11/02/2008 16:24:30 - mounting 0087JB > 11/02/2008 16:24:35 - current media 0087JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:23:59 - Error bptm(pid=2468) NBEMM returned an extended > error status: invalid error number (2005023) > 11/02/2008 16:24:00 - Error bptm(pid=2468) INF - unable to allocate new > media for backup, storage unit has none available (96), cannot continue > with copy 1 > 11/02/2008 16:24:46 - mounting 0002JB > 11/02/2008 16:24:57 - current media 0002JB complete, requesting next > media Any > 11/02/2008 16:24:26 - Error bptm(pid=2468) NBEMM returned an extended > error status: invalid error number (2005023) > 11/02/2008 16:25:22 - end writing > unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none > available(96) > > +-- > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +-- > > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu +-
Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96
Seems strange that you are backing up a network share, but you have Backup network drive at No. Can you send an output from vmpool -listall -bx ? Also vmpool -listscratch. Bobby Williams 2205 Peterson Drive Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421 423-296-8200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of amure1 Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:23 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 All "SERVERNAME" listed below is the name of the server that the Robot is connected to... Policy Name: Policy Name Policy Type: MS-Windows-NT Active: yes Effective date: 08/02/2007 10:23:34 Backup network drvs: no Collect TIR info:no Mult. Data Streams: no Client Encrypt: no Checkpoint: yes Interval: 15 Policy Priority: 0 Max Jobs/Policy: Unlimited Disaster Recovery: 0 Collect BMR info:no Residence: SERVERNAME-hcart2-robot-tld-0 Volume Pool: Win-Pool1 Keyword: (none specified) HW/OS/Client: PCWindowsNETSERVERNAME Include: \\192.24.4.111\backup Schedule: FULL Type:Full Backup Maximum MPX: 1 Synthetic: 0 PFI Recovery:0 Retention Level: 10 (7 years) 10 (7 years) Number Copies: 2 Fail on Error: 0 0 Residence: SERVERNAME-hcart2-robot-tld-0 SERVERNAME-hcart2-rob ot-tld-0 Volume Pool: Win-Pool1 Win-Pool2 Calendar sched: Enabled Saturday, Week 1 Saturday, Week 2 Saturday, Week 3 Saturday, Week 4 Saturday, Week 5 Daily Windows: Saturday 00:00:00 --> Sunday 06:00:00 this was working up to last thursday but has gone bad since then thanks Marcus +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96
>From the log entries I would say from experience that it looks like your media are full. Doug Preston -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of amure1 Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:52 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 Since the service restart there are quiet a few new errors (below has been edditied) 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource tedc-xn-nbm01.NBU_CLIENT.MAXJOBS.bkupXX 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource tedc-xn-nbm01.NBU_POLICY.MAXJOBS.TEDC-PREPAID 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource XX.NBU_CLIENT.MAXJOBS.YY 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource XX.NBU_POLICY.MAXJOBS.YY 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource 0025JB 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource 0002JB 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.003 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - started process bpbrm (2564) 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - connecting 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - connected; connect time: 00:00:00 11/02/2008 16:22:13 - mounting 0025JB 11/02/2008 16:22:18 - current media 0025JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource 0010JB 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:22:28 - mounting 0010JB 11/02/2008 16:22:34 - current media 0010JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource 0013JB 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.001 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:22:44 - mounting 0013JB 11/02/2008 16:22:52 - current media 0013JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource 0028JB 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:23:02 - mounting 0028JB 11/02/2008 16:23:15 - current media 0028JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource 0032JB 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:23:30 - mounting 0032JB 11/02/2008 16:23:36 - current media 0032JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource 0049JB 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.001 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:23:46 - mounting 0049JB 11/02/2008 16:23:53 - current media 0049JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource 0058JB 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:24:08 - mounting 0058JB 11/02/2008 16:24:18 - current media 0058JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource 0087JB 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:24:30 - mounting 0087JB 11/02/2008 16:24:35 - current media 0087JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:23:59 - Error bptm(pid=2468) NBEMM returned an extended error status: invalid error number (2005023) 11/02/2008 16:24:00 - Error bptm(pid=2468) INF - unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available (96), cannot continue with copy 1 11/02/2008 16:24:46 - mounting 0002JB 11/02/2008 16:24:57 - current media 0002JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:24:26 - Error bptm(pid=2468) NBEMM returned an extended error status: invalid error number (2005023) 11/02/2008 16:25:22 - end writing unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available(96) +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Anyone is using datadomain devices? Could you shareyour exp
Hello, We are currently using Data Domain in our infrastructure. I need to ask a couple of questions, are you going to replicate the data or just use this as a backup target? It appears that you are using the VTL solution that they offer, that is where we have had our issue, and quite a few of them. The VTL solution is good if you are not going to replicate the data. It has taken Data Domain over a year to get the code to a point where you can replicate the data and will not exceed to the point to where it will not catch up. Pool level replication has been the solution and our scrubbing the data that we actually replicate. I would look at all the solutions that are out there, many storage vendors are offering De-Dupe in there storage solutions. Regards, Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ajgrif Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:51 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Anyone is using datadomain devices? Could you shareyour exp We're currently about 2 weeks in to eval of a 580. I've been really impressed with the compression so far. We've been doing test backups of our 2.5Tb SAP instance - after the first backup the post compression size of that was 500Gb. We've since been throwing a mix of data at it, from Windows file server, Exchange, misc Oracle and SQL, and we're up to about 10 to 1 compression. My biggest issue with the device is the hard limit on how much data it can process. No matter what I/O options you go with - i.e. VTL or GigE - you'll always be limited to 220Mb per second. No matter how fast you get the data there, that's as fast as the DataDomain box can process it. Getting a tape based solution to match these speeds is quite easy - a properly configured fibre based tape library solution with, say 8 LTO3 drives, could easily handle 500+Mb per second. Obviously comparing the two is kind of an apples-and-oranges thing, but what I'm saying is that I don't like having to max out a products capabilities just to get it to work as I want. I'd rather have it be able to handle whatever I throw at and have extra capacity to spare. Especially for the price tag that the DataDomain devices carry. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Status 96
All "SERVERNAME" listed below is the name of the server that the Robot is connected to... Policy Name: Policy Name Policy Type: MS-Windows-NT Active: yes Effective date: 08/02/2007 10:23:34 Backup network drvs: no Collect TIR info:no Mult. Data Streams: no Client Encrypt: no Checkpoint: yes Interval: 15 Policy Priority: 0 Max Jobs/Policy: Unlimited Disaster Recovery: 0 Collect BMR info:no Residence: SERVERNAME-hcart2-robot-tld-0 Volume Pool: Win-Pool1 Keyword: (none specified) HW/OS/Client: PCWindowsNETSERVERNAME Include: \\192.24.4.111\backup Schedule: FULL Type:Full Backup Maximum MPX: 1 Synthetic: 0 PFI Recovery:0 Retention Level: 10 (7 years) 10 (7 years) Number Copies: 2 Fail on Error: 0 0 Residence: SERVERNAME-hcart2-robot-tld-0 SERVERNAME-hcart2-rob ot-tld-0 Volume Pool: Win-Pool1 Win-Pool2 Calendar sched: Enabled Saturday, Week 1 Saturday, Week 2 Saturday, Week 3 Saturday, Week 4 Saturday, Week 5 Daily Windows: Saturday 00:00:00 --> Sunday 06:00:00 this was working up to last thursday but has gone bad since then thanks Marcus +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Anyone is using datadomain devices? Could you share your exp
We're currently about 2 weeks in to eval of a 580. I've been really impressed with the compression so far. We've been doing test backups of our 2.5Tb SAP instance - after the first backup the post compression size of that was 500Gb. We've since been throwing a mix of data at it, from Windows file server, Exchange, misc Oracle and SQL, and we're up to about 10 to 1 compression. My biggest issue with the device is the hard limit on how much data it can process. No matter what I/O options you go with - i.e. VTL or GigE - you'll always be limited to 220Mb per second. No matter how fast you get the data there, that's as fast as the DataDomain box can process it. Getting a tape based solution to match these speeds is quite easy - a properly configured fibre based tape library solution with, say 8 LTO3 drives, could easily handle 500+Mb per second. Obviously comparing the two is kind of an apples-and-oranges thing, but what I'm saying is that I don't like having to max out a products capabilities just to get it to work as I want. I'd rather have it be able to handle whatever I throw at and have extra capacity to spare. Especially for the price tag that the DataDomain devices carry. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Status 96
Since the service restart there are quiet a few new errors (below has been edditied) 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource tedc-xn-nbm01.NBU_CLIENT.MAXJOBS.bkupXX 11/02/2008 16:21:56 - requesting resource tedc-xn-nbm01.NBU_POLICY.MAXJOBS.TEDC-PREPAID 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource XX.NBU_CLIENT.MAXJOBS.YY 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource XX.NBU_POLICY.MAXJOBS.YY 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource 0025JB 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource 0002JB 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.003 11/02/2008 16:21:58 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - started process bpbrm (2564) 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - connecting 11/02/2008 16:22:05 - connected; connect time: 00:00:00 11/02/2008 16:22:13 - mounting 0025JB 11/02/2008 16:22:18 - current media 0025JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource 0010JB 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 11/02/2008 16:22:27 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:22:28 - mounting 0010JB 11/02/2008 16:22:34 - current media 0010JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource 0013JB 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.001 11/02/2008 16:22:42 - granted resource tedc-pp-bkup01-hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:22:44 - mounting 0013JB 11/02/2008 16:22:52 - current media 0013JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource 0028JB 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 11/02/2008 16:23:00 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:23:02 - mounting 0028JB 11/02/2008 16:23:15 - current media 0028JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource 0032JB 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 11/02/2008 16:23:28 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:23:30 - mounting 0032JB 11/02/2008 16:23:36 - current media 0032JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource 0049JB 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.001 11/02/2008 16:23:44 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:23:46 - mounting 0049JB 11/02/2008 16:23:53 - current media 0049JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource 0058JB 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.002 11/02/2008 16:24:06 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:24:08 - mounting 0058JB 11/02/2008 16:24:18 - current media 0058JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource 0087JB 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource IBM.03592E05.000 11/02/2008 16:24:28 - granted resource hcart2-robot-tld-0 11/02/2008 16:24:30 - mounting 0087JB 11/02/2008 16:24:35 - current media 0087JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:23:59 - Error bptm(pid=2468) NBEMM returned an extended error status: invalid error number (2005023) 11/02/2008 16:24:00 - Error bptm(pid=2468) INF - unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available (96), cannot continue with copy 1 11/02/2008 16:24:46 - mounting 0002JB 11/02/2008 16:24:57 - current media 0002JB complete, requesting next media Any 11/02/2008 16:24:26 - Error bptm(pid=2468) NBEMM returned an extended error status: invalid error number (2005023) 11/02/2008 16:25:22 - end writing unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available(96) +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96
bppllist -U Bobby Williams 2205 Peterson Drive Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421 423-296-8200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of amure1 Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:45 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 I just notice something new in the logs "Error bptm(pid=2468) NBEMM returned an extended error status: invalid error number (2005023)" the robot seem fine though... were do I get the ASCII for withing netbackup? Thanks Marcus +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Status 96
I just notice something new in the logs "Error bptm(pid=2468) NBEMM returned an extended error status: invalid error number (2005023)" the robot seem fine though... were do I get the ASCII for withing netbackup? Thanks Marcus +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96
Post the ACSII listing of your policy. Bobby Williams 2205 Peterson Drive Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421 423-296-8200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Preston, Douglas L Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 11:01 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 Reinventory your library Doug Preston -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of amure1 Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 7:41 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 Im getting the same... There are about 40 tapes in the scratch pool and none are frozen or suspended I even tried moving a tape into the job with no avail this is how I have my system set up Policy Z using volume pool (X & Y) Pool Y is used to take a duplicate of X off site it started with just the "pool Y part of the job" giving the error ""unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available(96)"" now both are for some reason even though there are two copies there seems to be 3 jobs running in Activity Monitor rather that 1 for each of the copy?? we have 1 master server with 3 media servers for different domains that don't talk to each other (apart from Master server which talks to all).. At the moment were just doing manual backups so these are getting kicked of by me and the error is within minutes restarted all the server but the same thing keep happening Thanks for you help Marcus +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Status 96
That was the first thing I done When running the job it seem to grab media from the scratch pool and if you run available_media it shows as 0 in size and Active but still get the error... +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] General Advice - Flash Backups
On Feb 11, 2008 9:57 AM, WEAVER, Simon (external) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you Ed. Yes, our environment is a mixed and lot of SSO's, but it > seems to work. Providing we dont get any real failures, things work fine. > > The files are a real "mix and match" - but if I can get less than 18 > hours, I would be very happy. > > Im trying to find a PDF on this document for NBU 5.1 - but unable to find > anything relevant. Is this still a seperate product to buy, or is it part of > the so called "Advanced Client" ? > It's part of the Advanced Client. In NetBackup 6.5, this becomes the Enterprise Client (aka the Snapshot Client). .../Ed > Thank you > > -- > *From:* Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Monday, February 11, 2008 3:55 PM > *To:* WEAVER, Simon (external) > *Cc:* veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] General Advice - Flash Backups > > On Feb 11, 2008 9:21 AM, WEAVER, Simon (external) < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Scenario: 1 Win2k3 Server with 8 VDisks connected to a large enterprise > > SAN. environment Win2k3 Master + Many Media Servers using SSO. LTO2 Drives. > > > > Total Data is approx 2TB split across these vdisks. > > > > As Data is a mixture of files, sizes, compressed zipped and > > uncompressed, I get the backups completing in around 18 hours as a San Media > > using SSO. > > > > Just wondering if Flash Backups are the answer here for this type of > > system? > > > > Flash Backups are the answer for lots of little files. If you have a lot > of big files, it won't do much for you. Our original testing was on 250GB > volumes with 10M files on them and Flash Backups cut the elapsed time in > half. > > I just checked one of our Windows file clusters with a wide mixture of > file sizes and it backed up 525GB in under 5 hours and that's just a single > stream - there were multiple streams active on this server at the same > time. This job was writing directly to LTO-3 drives at about 33MB/sec over > a GigE network. We don't use SAN Media Servers at all - in my opinion, > they're evil when sharing tape drives. > >.../Ed > -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] General Advice - Flash Backups
On Feb 11, 2008 9:21 AM, WEAVER, Simon (external) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scenario: 1 Win2k3 Server with 8 VDisks connected to a large enterprise > SAN. environment Win2k3 Master + Many Media Servers using SSO. LTO2 Drives. > > Total Data is approx 2TB split across these vdisks. > > As Data is a mixture of files, sizes, compressed zipped and uncompressed, > I get the backups completing in around 18 hours as a San Media using SSO. > > Just wondering if Flash Backups are the answer here for this type of > system? > Flash Backups are the answer for lots of little files. If you have a lot of big files, it won't do much for you. Our original testing was on 250GB volumes with 10M files on them and Flash Backups cut the elapsed time in half. I just checked one of our Windows file clusters with a wide mixture of file sizes and it backed up 525GB in under 5 hours and that's just a single stream - there were multiple streams active on this server at the same time. This job was writing directly to LTO-3 drives at about 33MB/sec over a GigE network. We don't use SAN Media Servers at all - in my opinion, they're evil when sharing tape drives. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] General Advice - Flash Backups
Thank you Ed. Yes, our environment is a mixed and lot of SSO's, but it seems to work. Providing we dont get any real failures, things work fine. The files are a real "mix and match" - but if I can get less than 18 hours, I would be very happy. Im trying to find a PDF on this document for NBU 5.1 - but unable to find anything relevant. Is this still a seperate product to buy, or is it part of the so called "Advanced Client" ? Thank you From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:55 PM To: WEAVER, Simon (external) Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] General Advice - Flash Backups On Feb 11, 2008 9:21 AM, WEAVER, Simon (external) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Scenario: 1 Win2k3 Server with 8 VDisks connected to a large enterprise SAN. environment Win2k3 Master + Many Media Servers using SSO. LTO2 Drives. Total Data is approx 2TB split across these vdisks. As Data is a mixture of files, sizes, compressed zipped and uncompressed, I get the backups completing in around 18 hours as a San Media using SSO. Just wondering if Flash Backups are the answer here for this type of system? Flash Backups are the answer for lots of little files. If you have a lot of big files, it won't do much for you. Our original testing was on 250GB volumes with 10M files on them and Flash Backups cut the elapsed time in half. I just checked one of our Windows file clusters with a wide mixture of file sizes and it backed up 525GB in under 5 hours and that's just a single stream - there were multiple streams active on this server at the same time. This job was writing directly to LTO-3 drives at about 33MB/sec over a GigE network. We don't use SAN Media Servers at all - in my opinion, they're evil when sharing tape drives. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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] Status 96
Reinventory your library Doug Preston -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of amure1 Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 7:41 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 Im getting the same... There are about 40 tapes in the scratch pool and none are frozen or suspended I even tried moving a tape into the job with no avail this is how I have my system set up Policy Z using volume pool (X & Y) Pool Y is used to take a duplicate of X off site it started with just the "pool Y part of the job" giving the error ""unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available(96)"" now both are for some reason even though there are two copies there seems to be 3 jobs running in Activity Monitor rather that 1 for each of the copy?? we have 1 master server with 3 media servers for different domains that don't talk to each other (apart from Master server which talks to all).. At the moment were just doing manual backups so these are getting kicked of by me and the error is within minutes restarted all the server but the same thing keep happening Thanks for you help Marcus +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Status 96
Im getting the same... There are about 40 tapes in the scratch pool and none are frozen or suspended I even tried moving a tape into the job with no avail this is how I have my system set up Policy Z using volume pool (X & Y) Pool Y is used to take a duplicate of X off site it started with just the "pool Y part of the job" giving the error ""unable to allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available(96)"" now both are for some reason even though there are two copies there seems to be 3 jobs running in Activity Monitor rather that 1 for each of the copy?? we have 1 master server with 3 media servers for different domains that don't talk to each other (apart from Master server which talks to all).. At the moment were just doing manual backups so these are getting kicked of by me and the error is within minutes restarted all the server but the same thing keep happening Thanks for you help Marcus +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] General Advice - Flash Backups
Hi All Scenario: 1 Win2k3 Server with 8 VDisks connected to a large enterprise SAN. environment Win2k3 Master + Many Media Servers using SSO. LTO2 Drives. Total Data is approx 2TB split across these vdisks. As Data is a mixture of files, sizes, compressed zipped and uncompressed, I get the backups completing in around 18 hours as a San Media using SSO. Just wondering if Flash Backups are the answer here for this type of system? Thanks Simon 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] VXSS Feature
Abhishek, NetBackup ultimately relies upon system calls like gethostbyname() and gethostbyaddr(). So if those system level calls work, then NetBackup shouldn't have a problem either. I'm not sure what you mean by "nslookup is deactivated", but I'll assume you mean it's not working because you don't have a DNS server (since that's what nslookup uses). You can use the NetBackup provided bpclntcmd (/usr/openv/netbackup/bin/bpclntcmd) to check that name resolution is working: bpclntcmd: -sv bpclntcmd: -pn bpclntcmd: -self bpclntcmd: -hn bpclntcmd: -server bpclntcmd: -ip bpclntcmd: -gethostname bpclntcmd: -is_local_host bpclntcmd: -check_vxss bpclntcmd: -check_vxss_with_host bpclntcmd: -get_pbx_port [] bpclntcmd: -get_remote_host_version These are all documented in the commands manual, but I'd start with things like -hn and -ip to see if name resolution is working for NetBackup. HTH -Tim On 2/11/08, Abhishek Dhingra1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Tim, >If my /etc/hosts file is resolving the hosts, but nslookup is > deactivated and is not working , is it possible to configure .i am running > on AIX , and i have checked the /etc/netsvc.conf file, it is showing the > file first > > > Abhishek Dhingra > > IBM Global Services, Delhi, > Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mobile : +91-9818675370 > > > *"Tim Hoke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* > > 09/02/08 08:10 PM > To > Abhishek Dhingra1/India/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc > veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject > Re: [Veritas-bu] VXSS Feature > > > > > > > NetBackup (and therfore VxSS) rely on host configure name services to be > accurate. As long as your nsswitch.conf has hosts listed and hosts are > correct, NetBackup will function fine. > > HTH > -Tim > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] VXSS Feature
Hi Tim, If my /etc/hosts file is resolving the hosts, but nslookup is deactivated and is not working , is it possible to configure .i am running on AIX , and i have checked the /etc/netsvc.conf file, it is showing the file first Abhishek Dhingra IBM Global Services, Delhi, Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile : +91-9818675370 "Tim Hoke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/02/08 08:10 PM To Abhishek Dhingra1/India/[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject Re: [Veritas-bu] VXSS Feature NetBackup (and therfore VxSS) rely on host configure name services to be accurate. As long as your nsswitch.conf has hosts listed and hosts are correct, NetBackup will function fine. HTH -Tim ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96
What is your configuration?
What kind of tape library are you using. Check your policy and the "
volume policy pool" is correct.
that can cause 96 errors.
=
Carl Stehman
IT Distributed Services Team
Pepco Holdings, Inc.
202-331-6619
Pager 301-765-2703
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
bnetra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
02/11/2008 01:22 AM
Please respond to
VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
To
VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
cc
Subject
[Veritas-bu] Status 96
Using NBU 6.0MP4 on Windows.
While executing a manual backup NBU is giving Status 96 error "unable to
allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available (96)". I
ran the media list and found that there are enough volumes available under
this policy volume pool.
Where is the problem? What is the solution?
Thanks in advance.
BNetra
+--
|This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+--
___
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
This Email message and any attachment may contain information that is
proprietary, legally privileged, confidential and/or subject to copyright
belonging to Pepco Holdings, Inc. or its affiliates ("PHI"). This Email is
intended solely for the use of the person(s) to which it is addressed. If
you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
delivery of this Email to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this Email is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately
notify the sender and permanently delete this Email and any copies. PHI
policies expressly prohibit employees from making defamatory or offensive
statements and infringing any copyright or any other legal right by Email
communication. PHI will not accept any liability in respect of such
communications.
___
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96
Check that you are using the correct storage unit for the tapes that are available. You can give us an ASCII listing of your policy also. Bobby Williams 2205 Peterson Drive Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421 423-296-8200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bnetra Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:14 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 The tapes are not frozen or suspended. They are active. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Fwd: VSP Files
We had used VSP on NT4 at the time in NBU 3.4 - got to agree, in every case, it was turned off, because we found: 1) Backups never skipped any files with VSP turned on or off 2) Large cache files created 3) Pain to keep releasing the locks (use the sysinternals tool). I guess the VSS option in NBU 5.x onwards was purely their way to use the VSS API to bring confidance into the Win2k3 backups. Cheers Rusty From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 4:11 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Fwd: VSP Files In my opinion, VSP has never worked as it was advertised. We do not use it, and this issue just adds more fuel to that fire, for me. I was hoping that it had been fixed in 6.x, but apparently that is not the case. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of "WEAVER, Simon \(external\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 12:45 AM To: "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Martin, Jonathan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Fwd: VSP Files Got to agree with Jonathan, seems odd to me, but in a 500+ environment, not had to carry out the steps that has been pointed out. Give it time maybe? S. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Wilts Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:59 PM To: Martin, Jonathan Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Fwd: VSP Files On Feb 7, 2008 2:39 PM, Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not to disagree with Ed, but I've got better than 100 Windows 2003 clients installed without this issue, including the aforementioned x64-bit. And a lot of people will survive "name your disease". But some will die. The fact that it works for you does not discount the documented and acknowledged fact that it fails for some people some time. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 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] Status 96
The info you have provided is very basic. Is the Backup Policy using the correct volume pool? Are the tapes in the SCRATCH pool, and is it configured to put tapes in scratch? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bnetra Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 8:14 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Status 96 The tapes are not frozen or suspended. They are active. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu 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
[Veritas-bu] Status 96
The tapes are not frozen or suspended. They are active. +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Status 96
bnetra wrote: > Using NBU 6.0MP4 on Windows. > > > While executing a manual backup NBU is giving Status 96 error "unable to > allocate new media for backup, storage unit has none available (96)". I ran > the media list and found that there are enough volumes available under this > policy volume pool. > > Where is the problem? What is the solution? Please advise. Check that the tapes are not frozen or suspended. Alex ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
