Re: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups
From what I understand about synthetics, you have to have one real full backup, so there has to be a schedule with that type. Just run another non-synthetic full backup if all you want is a full Jared M. Seaton Recovery Administrator Mylan Inc. 304-554-5926 304-685-1389 (Cell) dbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/19/2008 09:52 PM Please respond to VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu To VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu cc Subject [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups When I attempt a synthetic backup and the most recent backup of the client is a full backup nothing happens. Nothing happens because Netbackup says there was no incremental backup to analyze. My question is: So What? I want another full backup, to a completely different volume pool, shouldn't Netbackup realize that the volume pool is different and run the synthetic backup again? Hopefully someone can tell me what I am doing wrong here. Thanks, dbergen +-- |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 == CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and all attachments transmitted with it may contain legally privileged, proprietary and/or confidential information intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution, duplication or other use of this message and/or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message and its attachments. Thank you. == ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation
It's NTFS and you're creating and deleting a lot of files on the volume so of course it will fragment. Either defragment the volume or set the minimum threshold lower so that more files get deleted when the cleanup process runs to reduce the fragmentation. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the info guys. It sounds like fragmentation is just a given when it comes to backing up to disk? I understand that, as seeing it explained does make sense. I have been looking for some of this well documented information and have come up empty. Searching for fragmentation on Symantecs site is like a journey through the looking glass. I will keep looking, but if anyone has any links to a white paper or something it would be much appreciated. Also, when you say set the minimum threshold lower so that more files get deleted... This confused me; I mean, isn't the fragmentation being caused by so many file creation/deletions? Wouldn't increasing the amount of files being deleted also increase the fragmentation? Or did I misread that? Thanks again for the info, T. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation
Today's NTFS handles fragmentation alot better - in fact, FAT and FAT32 were really the main file systems that would always get fragmented. That is not to say NTFS is not immune to the fragmentation that people may experience, but there are ways around to minimise it even more. Depending on the volume itself, and its intention is the key to keeping fragmentation down. When you format a volume you get the option of a cluster size. But you must be aware of what the volume itself will be storing. (for example, large files, or millions of small files). By default, when formatting, Windows keeps a default setting in place. Choosing a smaller cluster variable will waste less disk space but likely to cause fragmentation. Likewise, a larger cluster variable will cause less fragmentation but waste space. further details can be found in the online help of Win2k3, XP, 2000, ect ! Not to put my foot in it, but I am sure other systems suffer, but maybe its a NTFS thing ;-) Simon. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony T. Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:07 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation It's NTFS and you're creating and deleting a lot of files on the volume so of course it will fragment. Either defragment the volume or set the minimum threshold lower so that more files get deleted when the cleanup process runs to reduce the fragmentation. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the info guys. It sounds like fragmentation is just a given when it comes to backing up to disk? I understand that, as seeing it explained does make sense. I have been looking for some of this well documented information and have come up empty. Searching for fragmentation on Symantecs site is like a journey through the looking glass. I will keep looking, but if anyone has any links to a white paper or something it would be much appreciated. Also, when you say set the minimum threshold lower so that more files get deleted... This confused me; I mean, isn't the fragmentation being caused by so many file creation/deletions? Wouldn't increasing the amount of files being deleted also increase the fragmentation? Or did I misread that? Thanks again for the info, T. 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] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation
I still think that MS's undelete feature plays a part in this. When data is deleted in Windows, NTFS marks blocks to be released without actually erasing them. Rather than reusing released blocks, NTFS prefers new, unused blocks, which leads to fragmentation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER, Simon (external) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:21 AM To: Tony T.; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation Today's NTFS handles fragmentation alot better - in fact, FAT and FAT32 were really the main file systems that would always get fragmented. That is not to say NTFS is not immune to the fragmentation that people may experience, but there are ways around to minimise it even more. Depending on the volume itself, and its intention is the key to keeping fragmentation down. When you format a volume you get the option of a cluster size. But you must be aware of what the volume itself will be storing. (for example, large files, or millions of small files). By default, when formatting, Windows keeps a default setting in place. Choosing a smaller cluster variable will waste less disk space but likely to cause fragmentation. Likewise, a larger cluster variable will cause less fragmentation but waste space. further details can be found in the online help of Win2k3, XP, 2000, ect ! Not to put my foot in it, but I am sure other systems suffer, but maybe its a NTFS thing ;-) Simon. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony T. Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:07 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation It's NTFS and you're creating and deleting a lot of files on the volume so of course it will fragment. Either defragment the volume or set the minimum threshold lower so that more files get deleted when the cleanup process runs to reduce the fragmentation. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the info guys. It sounds like fragmentation is just a given when it comes to backing up to disk? I understand that, as seeing it explained does make sense. I have been looking for some of this well documented information and have come up empty. Searching for fragmentation on Symantecs site is like a journey through the looking glass. I will keep looking, but if anyone has any links to a white paper or something it would be much appreciated. Also, when you say set the minimum threshold lower so that more files get deleted... This confused me; I mean, isn't the fragmentation being caused by so many file creation/deletions? Wouldn't increasing the amount of files being deleted also increase the fragmentation? Or did I misread that? Thanks again for the info, T. 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] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation
H Not sure its common in NTFS though, however the older file systems FAT FAT32 definetely would play a part in this. Saying that, if users continually delete files from the same volume and they are restored from tape, would this increase fragmentation? From: Sesar, Steven L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:51 PM To: WEAVER, Simon (external); Tony T.; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation I still think that MS's undelete feature plays a part in this. When data is deleted in Windows, NTFS marks blocks to be released without actually erasing them. Rather than reusing released blocks, NTFS prefers new, unused blocks, which leads to fragmentation. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of WEAVER, Simon (external) Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:21 AM To: Tony T.; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation Today's NTFS handles fragmentation alot better - in fact, FAT and FAT32 were really the main file systems that would always get fragmented. That is not to say NTFS is not immune to the fragmentation that people may experience, but there are ways around to minimise it even more. Depending on the volume itself, and its intention is the key to keeping fragmentation down. When you format a volume you get the option of a cluster size. But you must be aware of what the volume itself will be storing. (for example, large files, or millions of small files). By default, when formatting, Windows keeps a default setting in place. Choosing a smaller cluster variable will waste less disk space but likely to cause fragmentation. Likewise, a larger cluster variable will cause less fragmentation but waste space. further details can be found in the online help of Win2k3, XP, 2000, ect ! Not to put my foot in it, but I am sure other systems suffer, but maybe its a NTFS thing ;-) Simon. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony T. Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:07 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation It's NTFS and you're creating and deleting a lot of files on the volume so of course it will fragment. Either defragment the volume or set the minimum threshold lower so that more files get deleted when the cleanup process runs to reduce the fragmentation. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks for the info guys. It sounds like fragmentation is just a given when it comes to backing up to disk? I understand that, as seeing it explained does make sense. I have been looking for some of this well documented information and have come up empty. Searching for fragmentation on Symantecs site is like a journey through the looking glass. I will keep looking, but if anyone has any links to a white paper or something it would be much appreciated. Also, when you say set the minimum threshold lower so that more files get deleted... This confused me; I mean, isn't the fragmentation being caused by so many file creation/deletions? Wouldn't increasing the amount of files being deleted also increase the fragmentation? Or did I misread that? Thanks again for the info, T. 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,
Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation
I'm curious if the image fragment size has any impact on file system fragmentation? I have used 2gb for disk staging on vxfs/solaris successfully, but I never got the DSU volume much past 80% full. -Jon Today's NTFS handles fragmentation alot better - in fact, FAT and FAT32 were really the main file systems that would always get fragmented. That is not to say NTFS is not immune to the fragmentation that people may experience, but there are ways around to minimise it even more. Depending on the volume itself, and its intention is the key to keeping fragmentation down. When you format a volume you get the option of a cluster size. But you must be aware of what the volume itself will be storing. (for example, large files, or millions of small files). By default, when formatting, Windows keeps a default setting in place. Choosing a smaller cluster variable will waste less disk space but likely to cause fragmentation. Likewise, a larger cluster variable will cause less fragmentation but waste space. further details can be found in the online help of Win2k3, XP, 2000, ect ! Not to put my foot in it, but I am sure other systems suffer, but maybe its a NTFS thing ;-) Simon. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups
You need to run a differential and then a synthetic full immediately following. The synthetic basically takes your last full and applies all the differentials to it to create a new full image. Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full Synthetic Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full Synthetic Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full etc... The Synthetic Full is a normal full image backup according to Netbackup and gets used in the next Synthetic Backup. I think there are issues with this related to deleted files (differential backups don't realize that something got deleted so the new full will have all the deleted files) so I would recommend refreshing the synthetic with an actual full every so often. -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dbergen Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:20 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups When I attempt a synthetic backup and the most recent backup of the client is a full backup nothing happens. Nothing happens because Netbackup says there was no incremental backup to analyze. My question is: So What? I want another full backup, to a completely different volume pool, shouldn't Netbackup realize that the volume pool is different and run the synthetic backup again? Hopefully someone can tell me what I am doing wrong here. Thanks, dbergen +-- |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] NBU 5.1: Disk staging causing heavy fragmentation
On Feb 20, 2008 11:10 AM, Martin, Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have found through testing when we first added some 16TB of storage for Disk-2-Disk that your fragmentation is going to be directly related to how many simultaneous streams you write to a DSU/DSSU at a time. In my testing, I got a minimum amount of fragmentation with 1-2 Streams, a bit worse with 4 streams, and at my current 20 max streams we're completely 100% fragmented. Sysinternals has a took that allows you to look at your disks sector by sector to look for fragmentation, but its a bit difficult to you use on disks that are 1TB or better. I created this slide for a Netbackup Training presentation I did 6 months ago... Wow, this is excellent! Thanks much for the insight. T. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups
The synthetic full keeps track of moved and deleted files that occur between incrementals. When the incrementals are assembled, the changes are reflected in the new synthetic full. I just tested this to see for myself. (ver 6.5) I believe this feature is enabled (and required) in the policy under the label collect true image restore information and with move detection. I moved a subdirectory to a new directory level, and the incremental backed up the entire contents of that moved data. It isn't smart enough to see that the files were same just moved to a new home. Maybe de-duplication will handle this in future versions. -Jon You need to run a differential and then a synthetic full immediately following. The synthetic basically takes your last full and applies all the differentials to it to create a new full image. Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full Synthetic Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full Synthetic Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full etc... The Synthetic Full is a normal full image backup according to Netbackup and gets used in the next Synthetic Backup. I think there are issues with this related to deleted files (differential backups don't realize that something got deleted so the new full will have all the deleted files) so I would recommend refreshing the synthetic with an actual full every so often. -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dbergen Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:20 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups When I attempt a synthetic backup and the most recent backup of the client is a full backup nothing happens. Nothing happens because Netbackup says there was no incremental backup to analyze. My question is: So What? I want another full backup, to a completely different volume pool, shouldn't Netbackup realize that the volume pool is different and run the synthetic backup again? Hopefully someone can tell me what I am doing wrong here. Thanks, dbergen +-- |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
Re: [Veritas-bu] bpbrm utilizing 99.9% CPU
Oops, it is running on SUSE Enterprise Linux 9, I always seem to forget some crucial piece of information like this. I ended up having to stopping NetBackup and restarting it to clear out the process. When I would try to kill it I kept getting the error that it didn't exist. Yet the GUI and command line process list showed it chiseling away at the CPU time. Thanks to all who helped in troubleshooting this thing. :) Dustin D'Amour Wireless Switching Plateau Wireless From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 11:11 PM To: Dustin Damour; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] bpbrm utilizing 99.9% CPU Dustin If you do not have any jobs running (or continually running for the client), I tend to stop all related NBU Services on the client and kill the processes. You do not say what OS you have, but there are tools out there for windows that allows you to kill processes that are continually running if you cannot use Task Manager to do the job :-). Its common if there has been a problem with comms between client/server or the client has just got itself in a mess and cannot sort itself out without help (even a reboot where poss!) HTH S. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dustin Damour Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:32 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpbrm utilizing 99.9% CPU I've noticed in the past that bpbrm is utilizing 99.9% of the CPU and hasn't let down. Also it says it has used 15436:40 CPU Time which seems like the process has gone rogue. Has anyone else had this happen or is this normal, and how would I fix it? NetBackup 6.5 Dustin D'Amour Wireless Switching Plateau Wireless 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] LTO2 restore problem on LTO4 tape drive
I'm having problems restoring a cumulative incremental standard policy backup stored on an LTO2 tape on an LTO4 drive. The density settings for the LTO2 tapes on my system is HCART, for LTO4 it's HCART3. I've run restores where I've set one of the LTO4 drives as density HCART in the device manager, restarted LTID and then created a storage unit for the LTO4 drive with the HCART density setting. I've also been able to run restores by setting the write protect tab on the LTO2 tape and then using vmchange to change the density to HCART3. I've been trying to restore from two tapes from a backup in November and I keep getting messages like this in the status window. 2/19/2008 12:59:46 PM - begin Restore 2/19/2008 12:59:48 PM - 1 images required 2/19/2008 12:59:48 PM - media K00443 required 2/19/2008 12:59:52 PM - restoring image spike.zgi.com_1195784616 2/19/2008 12:59:54 PM - connecting 2/19/2008 12:59:56 PM - connected; connect time: 00:00:02 2/19/2008 12:59:56 PM - requesting resource K00443 2/19/2008 12:59:56 PM - granted resource K00443 2/19/2008 12:59:56 PM - granted resource rmt-3cbn 2/19/2008 12:59:58 PM - Warning bptm(pid=546) media id K00443 not found in Media Manager, mount request will most likely occur 2/19/2008 12:59:58 PM - started process bptm (546) 2/19/2008 12:59:58 PM - mounting K00443 I don't know why I'm getting the media id not found in media manager error. The tape shows up if you do a bpmedialist or a vmquery. What I see is that the tape loads into the proper drive, does nothing for a while and then then NetBackup says that it is done with the tape (in this case K00443) and needs to load the next tape, which it identifies as K00443 (this is a one tape restore, I'm only interested in restoring the cumulative incremental backups from two days) and downs the tape drive. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? Thanks, Jamie Jamison ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] VCB Eror
We are getting an error on our VCB backups that says: Snapshot creation failed: Custom pre-freeze script failed. but there isn't a custom script on the system. The VM is a Windows 2003 server and all VMware tools are up to date. The backup worked one day and failed the next day with this error. Anyone ever seen it before? Reneé Carlisle ServerWare Corporation ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups
It is set to 9 days, and I can't remember what the initial default was. I run the synthetic fulls each week, so 9 days gives me the overlap I want in case something happens and the synthetic doesn't run right on schedule. I keep two weeks of incrementals, and three fulls on this system. -Jon Did you have to change your Keep TIR Information to longer than 1 day in your Master server properties to get this to work? -Jonathan -Original Message- From: Jon Bousselot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:21 PM To: Martin, Jonathan Cc: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups The synthetic full keeps track of moved and deleted files that occur between incrementals. When the incrementals are assembled, the changes are reflected in the new synthetic full. I just tested this to see for myself. (ver 6.5) I believe this feature is enabled (and required) in the policy under the label collect true image restore information and with move detection. I moved a subdirectory to a new directory level, and the incremental backed up the entire contents of that moved data. It isn't smart enough to see that the files were same just moved to a new home. Maybe de-duplication will handle this in future versions. -Jon You need to run a differential and then a synthetic full immediately following. The synthetic basically takes your last full and applies all the differentials to it to create a new full image. Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full Synthetic Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full Synthetic Full + Diff + Diff + Diff = Synthetic Full etc... The Synthetic Full is a normal full image backup according to Netbackup and gets used in the next Synthetic Backup. I think there are issues with this related to deleted files (differential backups don't realize that something got deleted so the new full will have all the deleted files) so I would recommend refreshing the synthetic with an actual full every so often. -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dbergen Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:20 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups When I attempt a synthetic backup and the most recent backup of the client is a full backup nothing happens. Nothing happens because Netbackup says there was no incremental backup to analyze. My question is: So What? I want another full backup, to a completely different volume pool, shouldn't Netbackup realize that the volume pool is different and run the synthetic backup again? Hopefully someone can tell me what I am doing wrong here. Thanks, dbergen +- +- |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
Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO2 restore problem on LTO4 tape drive
Hi Jamie, Read this: *LTO-4* can *read*/write LTO-3 tapes but can only *read* LTO-2 tapes. It cannot *read LTO-1* tapes On Feb 20, 2008 2:16 PM, JAJA (Jamie Jamison) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm having problems restoring a cumulative incremental standard policy backup stored on an LTO2 tape on an LTO4 drive. The density settings for the LTO2 tapes on my system is HCART, for LTO4 it's HCART3. I've run restores where I've set one of the LTO4 drives as density HCART in the device manager, restarted LTID and then created a storage unit for the LTO4 drive with the HCART density setting. I've also been able to run restores by setting the write protect tab on the LTO2 tape and then using vmchange to change the density to HCART3. I've been trying to restore from two tapes from a backup in November and I keep getting messages like this in the status window. 2/19/2008 12:59:46 PM - begin Restore 2/19/2008 12:59:48 PM - 1 images required 2/19/2008 12:59:48 PM - media K00443 required 2/19/2008 12:59:52 PM - restoring image spike.zgi.com_1195784616 2/19/2008 12:59:54 PM - connecting 2/19/2008 12:59:56 PM - connected; connect time: 00:00:02 2/19/2008 12:59:56 PM - requesting resource K00443 2/19/2008 12:59:56 PM - granted resource K00443 2/19/2008 12:59:56 PM - granted resource rmt-3cbn 2/19/2008 12:59:58 PM - Warning bptm(pid=546) media id K00443 not found in Media Manager, mount request will most likely occur 2/19/2008 12:59:58 PM - started process bptm (546) 2/19/2008 12:59:58 PM - mounting K00443 I don't know why I'm getting the media id not found in media manager error. The tape shows up if you do a bpmedialist or a vmquery. What I see is that the tape loads into the proper drive, does nothing for a while and then then NetBackup says that it is done with the tape (in this case K00443) and needs to load the next tape, which it identifies as K00443 (this is a one tape restore, I'm only interested in restoring the cumulative incremental backups from two days) and downs the tape drive. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with this? Thanks, Jamie Jamison ___ 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] Question about synthetic backups
As to TOP's question, have you tried running a full, then a series of incrementals, THEN a syn full or cumulative incremental? That's what it's designed for. Why would you make a syn full from a full? The results would be the same a duplication of that same backup, with a lot more work. The use of it without any fulls is pointless enough that the program is probably just barfing and saying what are you doing? You don't have any incrementals to merge into a full! All you have is a full! Why don't you just copy it? To the question of what synthetic backups are for... The purpose of NetBackup's Synthetic Backups is to allow you create a full or cumulative incremental backup without having to transfer the files across the network. The definite benefits are reduction in load on the client and network, and that you can create the full/cumulative backup any time of the day -- you can't do that with regular fulls. It may or may NOT take shorter than a traditional full or cumulative incremental backup. IMHO, Symantec oversold the quicker aspects in the early days of Synthetics, and created a lot of unhappy people because in some circumstances they take longer. They're still BETTER (no load on the client or network, and run them at any time.) In order to create a Synthetic Full/Cumulative backup, NBU wants to have on tape all of the files in the condition they currently exist on the client being backed up. In order to do that, it must perform an incremental. Otherwise you'd be creating a full backup based on files that were backed up at some previous point in time, so your synthetic backup would look like it was taken yesterday or before. Therefore, NBU requires you to take an incremental just before. Bringing TSM into this comparison muddies the waters, IMHO. First, they have a completely different architecture that doesn't require fulls for filesystem backups. You have to do other things that NBU doesn't need to do, like reclamation, but you don't need to do fulls. The closest thing TSM has to a Synthetic Full Backup is a Backup Set, also referred to as an instant archive. A Backup Set is a self contained tape that can be read and restored from without the TSM database, and consequently, its contents are not stored in the TSM database. So a Backup Set cannot be used for regular operational restores inside TSM -- it is designed to be used outside TSM. When you compare a Backup Set to a Synthetic Backup, they are very similar. Perform a recent incremental, then create your Backup Set. Although TSM doesn't require it, it would be silly to do otherwise, unless you were trying to create an archive from several days ago. --- W. Curtis Preston Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:veritas-bu- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Haskins, Steve Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 7:02 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups CBergen, You're not the only one that would like some enlightenment...I mean, on synthetics backups. I don't understand why incrementals have to be continuously run at all. As I understand it, that is the point of synthetic backups as to have a full and just backup the changes from that point forward with synthetics? That is the way TSM's synthetic backups work with the option of how many 'versions' to retain. I'm on 5.1 (getting ready to upgrade to 6.5.1) so maybe synthetics are different in 6.x? What is exactly done between the required incrementals and the synthetics? Does each synthetic combine the previous two incrementals and how; as a differential and then expire the two tapes that were used for the incrementals (just an example if two were used)or delete the incrementals images on the tapes OR disk? Regards, Steve -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dbergen Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:20 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Question about synthetic backups When I attempt a synthetic backup and the most recent backup of the client is a full backup nothing happens. Nothing happens because Netbackup says there was no incremental backup to analyze. My question is: So What? I want another full backup, to a completely different volume pool, shouldn't Netbackup realize that the volume pool is different and run the synthetic backup again? Hopefully someone can tell me what I am doing wrong here. Thanks, dbergen +-- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +-- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
[Veritas-bu] Exclusions
Question about excluding files on Windows 2003 clients (5.1 MP6) Is *.ldf and *.mdf the correct way to exclude all mdf and ldf files, regardless of what drive they are on? Or, do I need to specify the drive letter for each drive the ldf and mdf files reside on (D:\*.ldf, E:\*.ldf)? The admin guide indicates that * is a valid wildcard but I can't find an example of how to use it. Jason Leidy Con-way Enterprise Services Windows Server Group 503-450-3958 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Is BMR worth it / How long does it really save you?
Hi all, Does BMR really speed up recovery significantly? Reading through the documentation it seems that between the multiple reboots, reinstalling windows, restoring the data files, reformat time, it seems like it doesn't save much time over a typical restore (manually reformat the system, load nic drivers + Netbackup, and kick off restore). Any ideas on this? Thanks! - Hadrian ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Exclusions
*.ldf and *.mdf is all you need. NetBackup will exclude every occurrence of files with those extensions even if you offer it cash to take them. Thanks, Randy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leidy, Jason D Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:04 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Exclusions Question about excluding files on Windows 2003 clients (5.1 MP6) Is *.ldf and *.mdf the correct way to exclude all mdf and ldf files, regardless of what drive they are on? Or, do I need to specify the drive letter for each drive the ldf and mdf files reside on (D:\*.ldf, E:\*.ldf)? The admin guide indicates that * is a valid wildcard but I can't find an example of how to use it. Jason Leidy Con-way Enterprise Services Windows Server Group 503-450-3958 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] NB 6.5.1 on AIX 5.3.6 does not start
6.5.0 starts fine, 6.5.1 does not. I only get a partial set of media server processes. Support, grasping at straws a bit I think, suggests setting AIXTHREAD_SCOPE to S... I suppose in the startup scripts for NB. Tech Doc: http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/294286.htm IBM Doc: http://publibn.boulder.ibm.com/doc_link/en_US/a_doc_lib/aixbman/prftungd /2365c35.htm Any confirmation? Concurrence? -M ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] test
Testing email ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Is BMR worth it / How long does it really save you?
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Hadrian Baron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does BMR really speed up recovery significantly? Reading through the documentation it seems that between the multiple reboots, reinstalling windows, restoring the data files, reformat time, it seems like it doesn't save much time over a typical restore (manually reformat the system, load nic drivers + Netbackup, and kick off restore). Disclaimer: I've seen the demos but we don't have it running yet. I know the theory though. I've seen a full system restore from bare metal in 20 minutes. Our Windows admins take a day or 2 to rebuild a server...and even then, they don't always get it right. One of the key things to consider, though, is how important it is to get the server back to the exact same configuration it was before it died. If it's important, and it probably should be, BMR is far more critical than a simple re-install. Don't forget that not only do you have to re-install Windows, you'd have to apply all of the identical server paks you had on the system to begin within, all of the exact same versions and patches to the applications, identical drivers, identical registry settings, local user configurations, share configurations, and only then can you worry about the application data. If you try the rebuild approach, the odds are almost 100% that what you end up with will not be the same as what you started with. One missed setting and your application could crash, fail, or corrupt data. You may not even partition the drives the same as what you had. .../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] Is BMR worth it / How long does it really save you?
I would say yes, it is worth it. A few extra seconds on the backup job to collect BMR data, a BMR server for each of your supported platforms, and you get a simple way to get all your data back along with the configuration. I too witnessed a moderately complex windows system come back to life after booting from a CD, answering a few questions, then walking away while the tapes wrote all the files to disk. I did a proof of concept test on a sun/solaris server, and when completely configured, you type 'boot net' and walk away. A solaris install can take a couple of hours to put down the OS, run the patches, and configure everything to support the application you are trying to recover, so a feature like BMR can save a lot of time. I never got to test out the PXE boot and BMR feature for linux. The windows recovery methods that involve a clean install can take just as long if you have a series of applications that each take their own time and set of skills to install. With BMR, everything you need to get the system operational (assuming you can successfully recover from the last backup) will be put down on disk. BMR is likely to save a bunch of time if your dynamic data (a database for example) lived on a disk and drive letter that did not completely fail. You can add NIC drivers to the bootable CD to support a variety of network and system configurations. It's in the docs. BMR would be handy as a backout method for systems about to be significantly upgraded. -Jon Hi all, Does BMR really speed up recovery significantly? Reading through the documentation it seems that between the multiple reboots, reinstalling windows, restoring the data files, reformat time, it seems like it doesn’t save much time over a typical restore (manually reformat the system, load nic drivers + Netbackup, and kick off restore). Any ideas on this? Thanks! - Hadrian ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Exclusions
I've always said NetBackup can do anything you want it to do and it will do exactly what you tell it to do. That's good and bad. Symantec should merge with Google that way when I execute the wrong command, NetBackup will give me a popup with Did you mean . . . From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 10:25 PM To: Randy Samora Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Exclusions On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Randy Samora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: *.ldf and *.mdf is all you need. NetBackup will exclude every occurrence of files with those extensions even if you offer it cash to take them. Unless, of course, that cash is the include list which trumps the exclude list :-) .../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
