Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
The bpdbm parent process spawns a child for just about everything it does. So, if you have script or reporting tools that are running bpimagelist, bpmedialist, bpmedia, bpexpdate, etc. it will create child bpdbm processes for all of those. Aptare is infamous for creating lots of these and driving load up on a master server. -Trey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sponsler, Michael Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:05 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server. My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed this behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running, but also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in netbackup/logs/bpdbm are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log file. I'm seeing such inforation in there as: image_by_file: processing file /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle-B ackup_1157475027_UBAK expdate: no match for /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Oracl e-Backup_1203468053_INCR by bp.conf file has: VERBOSE = 1 ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs talking about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years since we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so why is Netbackup processing those files? On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs of RAM, 4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup domain...60 Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server sees constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks up. Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the catalog, and spawning so many bpdbm processes? -- Mike Sponsler [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] Storage unit groups are not understood - yes I'mpuzzeld
What's the multiplexing # set to on the schedule? Also, "Allow multiple data streams" is checked on the policies, right? You can have an unlimited number of policies using a storage unit group as far as I know. We've got well over 100 policies using a storage unit group with 2-4 storage units in it and we run over 1000 active jobs to this storage units. There are many enablers and limits for multiplexing and multistreaming that all have to be turned on and turned up for it to work. The lowest denominator is on the schedule itself, so if a new stream starts, it will not join a mpx group that's got more jobs active than what it's set to. i.e. a schedule with an mpx setting of 4 will not join a storage unit with Max Drives = 1 and Max MPX = 10 that's got 5 streams running, even though the storage unit can take 5 more streams. -Trey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of fred fred Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 4:22 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Storage unit groups are not understood - yes I'mpuzzeld In the relms of the Top 20 (or so) misunderstood specifically #2. Storage unit groups are not understood. (version = 6.5.1) I'm still puzzled. If you have policies pointing to the same storage group with two policies running with the a couple of streams each. Then a third starts it ends up by queueing. The only difference being its not NT Windows but a Standard Unix policy. Rentetion time and media pool the same. Can only a limited number of Policies actually use the storage group at any one time, even if the retention time and tape pool the same? Does the same apply for storage units? If you have a stroage unit like below I would expect you could have two policies writng to it at the same time (with no queueing ) as long as there less than a total of 10 streams. Policies with media multiplexing of 10 and same retention and pool. Storage Unit: Multiplexing enabled Maximum concurrent write drives: 1 Maximum streams per drive: 10 I have set it to one as I don't what to multistream to more that two tapes drives in the storage unit group. Storage Unit Group (set to "balance load" ) has two storage units of the above i.e a max of 20 streams i.e it will do twice the work load of my example I'm assuming each stream is a "job". In the manuals what is a "job" seems to change with context. Max client streams = 24 (for slow backups of small servers) Am I missing anything? Cheers Fred ___ 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] Emulex cards and RHEL5?
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Hadrian Baron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I too see people shying away from Emulex. I think we will be moving > forward with only Qlogic as well. One of the things we like is that most Unix systems originally liked only Qlogic although that is starting to change. Given that a person wants to standardize, Qlogic makes more sense. Another added bonus is that you don't have to worry about firmware updates on Qlogic HBAs - just update the drivers and you're done. With Emulex HBAs, you have to update both and try to keep them in synch. Not too big of a deal, but it's 2 sets of data you have to keep track of. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If I've helped you, please make a donation to my favorite charity at http://firstgiving.com/edwilts ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Terminate backup job after a specified amount oftime
Our admins executed a kill script when we were back on 5.0 and occasionally had hanging processes (especially on Linux and HP-UX boxes) that ate up CPU...they made it a cron job. [hanging processes have not been an issue in 6.0 and beyond for us] That's how they did it. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of A Darren Dunham Sent: Sun 4/27/2008 11:06 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Terminate backup job after a specified amount oftime On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 05:42:59PM -0400, Larry Mascarenhas wrote: > Hello, > > I have a scenario whereby after a specified amount of time (say 8 > hours), I would like to terminate the backup job. At this point, we're > entering the market hours and backups need to be stopped. Is there any > available methodology in Netbackup to interrupt the backups after > specified amount of time / at a specified time? Not that I'm aware of. > If there isn't, I'm looking for pointers as to how to identify the > parent job (Gui is too easy. I'm looking for command line to script it) > and from there get the time. Any other way to do this? It is available in bpdbjobs -all_columns output, but it's in the variable section after field 32, so it's not the simplest to parse. -- Darren Dunham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Senior Technical Consultant TAOShttp://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Emulex cards and RHEL5?
I too see people shying away from Emulex. I think we will be moving forward with only Qlogic as well. Not sure why other than it seems most operating systems like them, as well as our SAN gear only uses Qlogic. It's nice to standardize. - Hadrian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Piszcz Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:28 AM To: Ed Wilts Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Emulex cards and RHEL5? On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Anyone here use Emulex cards and RHEL5? It seems to have persistent >> binding on by default? > > > The official recommendations are that persistent binding be turned on for > tape drives. This comes from both Symantec and SNIA. The only exception > that I'm aware of is Solaris 10. This is certainly true of SSO environment > and I think I recall that you're using SSO. > > http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/256261.htm > > In any case, persistent binding should never make things worse - it may not > be required, but it shouldn't hurt to have it on. > > Around here, we've made a decision to not use Emulex HBAs in any > Linux/Solaris environment and to also purchase only Qlogic HBAs on all > Windows systems going forward. It's just easier... > > -- > Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If I've helped you, please make a donation to my favorite charity at > http://firstgiving.com/edwilts > Not using SSO here but agree with the QLogic comment. ___ 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] User Directed Exchange backups
Is there any way to perform user directed MS Exchange Agent backups where the logs get truncated just like they do in a regularly scheduled backup? Is there any kind of fix out there to achieve this result? Thanks. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Is NBU v6.5.1 stable?
I would have to say that I love 6.5.1. I have seen client backup speeds increase by 7 times. --Chris Wible Backup and Recovery Lead Performance Food Group -- Original message from [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- > Send Veritas-bu mailing list submissions to > veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Veritas-bu digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Remote Online Backups ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > 2. Re: full DSUs in old NBU revs (was: something longer) ! > (A ndrey Halezov) > 3. Re: NetBackup 6.5.1 and Exchange 2007 (Ambrose, Monte) > 4. NBU 6.0 Master Server hangs...many bpdbm process running > (Sponsler, Michael) > 5. Is NBU v6.5.1 stable? (King, Cheryl) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:56:52 -0600 > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Remote Online Backups > To: > Message-ID: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > FYI: [EMAIL PROTECTED] notified, management at Riverbed Technologies > notified. > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] n.eng.a uburn.edu] On Behalf Of > rubbyfiller > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 12:59 AM > To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Remote Online Backups > > > Performing backups at every remote site is complicated, expensive and > risky too. Doing backup across the WAN is easier, reliable, and more > secure. > > Have you experimented Riverbed Copy Utility (RCU)? > It would be a great fit. > By overcoming bandwidth limitations and reducing network latency, > Riverbed's WDS facilitates network-based backup approaches in most of > the customer environments. Riverbed technology optimizes: > 1. Centralized backup and recovery of servers and desktop machines > in remote offices > 2. Replication of centralized data repositories between data > centers > > in your distributed enterprise for backing up large amounts of data. > R CU for disaster recovery can also be used for your remote backup > solution just as effectively. > > http://www.wdsforum.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=10 > > +-- > |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. > |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +-- > > > > > > -- > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:20:38 -0500 > From: "Andrey Halezov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] full DSUs in old NBU revs (was: something > longer) > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Bob, Curtis, David, Ed, > Thanks a lot for your suggestions. > > I will follow David's suggestion to melt all my small drives into a > big Volume using Solstice or Veritas VM. > > Thank you > > On 3/24/08, bob944 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > I have setup several 34G disks mounted as /backupdisk_1, > > > /backupdisk_2, /backupdisk_3 and etc... Each mount point > > > becomes a separate Disk Storage Unit. I also have a Media > > > Manager Storage Unit - DLT tape library with 20 tapes. > > > > > > All my backup classes are setup with property "Storage_Unit" > > > set to "any available". > > > > > > Expectation > > > === > > > To continue backup on the next Storage Unit (Disk or M! edia Ma nager, > > > whichever has space available) after one of the Storage Units > > > fills up. > > > > Many users (myself included) somehow assumed that DSUs would work that > > way when they were introduced. They don't. DSUs and STUG[roup]s get > > smarter every release, though; this is the default setting for 6.5 > > STUGs: > > > > Prioritized > > NetBackup chooses the first storage unit in the list that is not busy, > > down, or out of media. Also, the storage unit must not have reached the > > maximum concurrent jobs setting. When one of the specified conditions > > occurs, the next storage unit in the list is examined until NetBackup > > finds an available storage unit. If one is not available or if one does > > not have enough available space, the job fails and is not queued. > > (Default.) > > &! gt; > ; > Looks like NetBackup chooses Storage Unit for the job and > > > doesn't change to different one after the chosen Storage > > > Unit fills up. > > > Is there a way to fix my setup? > > > > If you're expecting a job, a stream, to start on one STU, then continue > > on another, that's not
Re: [Veritas-bu] Emulex cards and RHEL5?
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008, Ed Wilts wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Anyone here use Emulex cards and RHEL5? It seems to have persistent >> binding on by default? > > > The official recommendations are that persistent binding be turned on for > tape drives. This comes from both Symantec and SNIA. The only exception > that I'm aware of is Solaris 10. This is certainly true of SSO environment > and I think I recall that you're using SSO. > > http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/256261.htm > > In any case, persistent binding should never make things worse - it may not > be required, but it shouldn't hurt to have it on. > > Around here, we've made a decision to not use Emulex HBAs in any > Linux/Solaris environment and to also purchase only Qlogic HBAs on all > Windows systems going forward. It's just easier... > > -- > Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If I've helped you, please make a donation to my favorite charity at > http://firstgiving.com/edwilts > Not using SSO here but agree with the QLogic comment. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Deduping with Tape as a final destination
Actually - EMC just gave a presentation here of their BURA (BackUP/Recovery/Archive) stuff. I gather the deduplication device they sell will allow you to backup to tape if you want but not with NBU unfortunately. To use NBU you'd still have to do standard duplication/vaulting. We're doing vaulting from our dedupe Data Domain devices to tape. If you really only want to store deduped data remotely you might want to look at putting a unit at offsite storage or your DR site. Both Data Domain and EMC allow you to push the deduped data across WAN that way. I'm guessing the other vendors do as well. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rosenkoetter, Gabriel Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 10:35 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Deduping with Tape as a final destination All of the deduplication products available currently provide deduplication only at the disk STU. Whether you use their mechanisms or NetBackup Vault to later copy that data off onto tape media, the data written to tape will be "reduplicated". A DataDomain sales rep mentioned, when a coworker pursued this same question some time ago, that they knew of various customer requests to maintain deduplication on tape media, but it's not something NetBackup currently provides a way to manage (remember that deduplication devices are essentially black boxes for NetBackup: they're taking care of the hashing of data, but on recovery they're recovering the full data set, and the same thing when you run a duplication job to tape), and it's a questionable desire with regards to DR strategy. I certainly see how it sounds attractive for media purchasing and slot space at Iron Mountain, but it does change the meaning of a tape back for DR purposes and the way you'd use that backup. -- gabriel rosenkoetter Radian Group Inc, Unix/Linux/VMware Sysadmin / Backup & Recovery [EMAIL PROTECTED], 215 231 1556 -Original Message- From: mbpettis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:55 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Deduping with Tape as a final destination So, ultimately, the data copied to the tape will be the full amount of the data and not the deduped data? For example, the original 100GB deduped down to 20GB will be the full 100GB and not the 20GB? Or will it be the 20GB, with Netbackup referring back to the index and/or base data? Thanks, Michael +-- |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 may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. -- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Emulex cards and RHEL5?
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Justin Piszcz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyone here use Emulex cards and RHEL5? It seems to have persistent > binding on by default? The official recommendations are that persistent binding be turned on for tape drives. This comes from both Symantec and SNIA. The only exception that I'm aware of is Solaris 10. This is certainly true of SSO environment and I think I recall that you're using SSO. http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/256261.htm In any case, persistent binding should never make things worse - it may not be required, but it shouldn't hurt to have it on. Around here, we've made a decision to not use Emulex HBAs in any Linux/Solaris environment and to also purchase only Qlogic HBAs on all Windows systems going forward. It's just easier... -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If I've helped you, please make a donation to my favorite charity at http://firstgiving.com/edwilts ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] master vs. media servers behind firewalls.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Michitsch, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a question about a Netbackup 6.5 deployment. We are currently > using separate master servers for our internal clients and our external > clients in both of our primary datacenters. This equates to four separate > backup environments to manage. We would like to have one master for all of > our environments. We are thinking about one master server in our primary > location, a media server in the secondary location and media servers for the > two external environments. We would open ports to allow the external media > servers to communicate through the firewall to our internal master server, > giving us a single view for all backups. > > However, when reading the documentation, Symantec recommends having a > separate master per firewall domain and using NOM to manage all of them. We > do not want to pay for three additional master server licenses and a NOM > license. Is anyone already doing this, or have any opinions as to why I > would not do it? > We currently have a single master and then have a media server in each firewall domain. This works very well for us and we've been doing this for many years. There are security implications doing this so you need to watch yourself to make sure you're not jumping firewall domains across your backup network. BTW, NOM does not require a separate license but it does require a separate system. We don't use NOM at all. .../Ed -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If I've helped you, please make a donation to my favorite charity at http://firstgiving.com/edwilts ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Deduping with Tape as a final destination
All of the deduplication products available currently provide deduplication only at the disk STU. Whether you use their mechanisms or NetBackup Vault to later copy that data off onto tape media, the data written to tape will be "reduplicated". A DataDomain sales rep mentioned, when a coworker pursued this same question some time ago, that they knew of various customer requests to maintain deduplication on tape media, but it's not something NetBackup currently provides a way to manage (remember that deduplication devices are essentially black boxes for NetBackup: they're taking care of the hashing of data, but on recovery they're recovering the full data set, and the same thing when you run a duplication job to tape), and it's a questionable desire with regards to DR strategy. I certainly see how it sounds attractive for media purchasing and slot space at Iron Mountain, but it does change the meaning of a tape back for DR purposes and the way you'd use that backup. -- gabriel rosenkoetter Radian Group Inc, Unix/Linux/VMware Sysadmin / Backup & Recovery [EMAIL PROTECTED], 215 231 1556 -Original Message- From: mbpettis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:55 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Deduping with Tape as a final destination So, ultimately, the data copied to the tape will be the full amount of the data and not the deduped data? For example, the original 100GB deduped down to 20GB will be the full 100GB and not the 20GB? Or will it be the 20GB, with Netbackup referring back to the index and/or base data? Thanks, Michael +-- |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] Emulex cards and RHEL5?
Anyone here use Emulex cards and RHEL5? It seems to have persistent binding on by default? Previously, our old environment consisted of QLogic HBAs and when you disconnect/re-connect a tape drive, everything just works. By default with RHEL5 when you disconnect a drive and re-attach it, and then check cat /proc/scsi/scsi, it shows a new device and thinks the old one is still persisting.. I have not read the docs yet, just began looking at this an hour ago but it seems like I need to turn off persistent binding(?) in order to keep the same behvaior as the QLogic boards? RHEL5 also has UDEV which may also play a role, a lot of things changed obviously, just trying to narrow it down at the moment. Any hints? Thanks, Justin. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] NBU 6.5.1 : not all files backed up in system32/drivers directory
Dear All, I was doing some backup and restore test on a win 2k3 system and I noticed that not all the files in that directory were backup up. Only 19 out of 181. I checked several win 2K3 systems and all had the same problem. Does anybody knows why? Greg ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] master vs. media servers behind firewalls.
Media server and master server license are the same thing in 6.5 Doug Preston NOTICE: This electronic mail transmission may constitute a communication that is legally privileged. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail, so that our address record can be corrected. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michitsch, John Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:32 AM To: Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] master vs. media servers behind firewalls. This is a question about a Netbackup 6.5 deployment. We are currently using separate master servers for our internal clients and our external clients in both of our primary datacenters. This equates to four separate backup environments to manage. We would like to have one master for all of our environments. We are thinking about one master server in our primary location, a media server in the secondary location and media servers for the two external environments. We would open ports to allow the external media servers to communicate through the firewall to our internal master server, giving us a single view for all backups. However, when reading the documentation, Symantec recommends having a separate master per firewall domain and using NOM to manage all of them. We do not want to pay for three additional master server licenses and a NOM license. Is anyone already doing this, or have any opinions as to why I would not do it? Thanks. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] master vs. media servers behind firewalls.
This is a question about a Netbackup 6.5 deployment. We are currently using separate master servers for our internal clients and our external clients in both of our primary datacenters. This equates to four separate backup environments to manage. We would like to have one master for all of our environments. We are thinking about one master server in our primary location, a media server in the secondary location and media servers for the two external environments. We would open ports to allow the external media servers to communicate through the firewall to our internal master server, giving us a single view for all backups. However, when reading the documentation, Symantec recommends having a separate master per firewall domain and using NOM to manage all of them. We do not want to pay for three additional master server licenses and a NOM license. Is anyone already doing this, or have any opinions as to why I would not do it? Thanks. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Discrepancy between Catalog search and media listing
Michael Schmarck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why does the Catalog search (and also the Detailed Status listing of this > job) show that this tape has been mounted and written on, while the > media listing shows that tape as being unused? The GUI was just messed up - I restarted jnbsa, and all is as well. Michael ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] Discrepancy between Catalog search and media listing
Hello. I'm using NBU 5.1 MP6 on a Solaris 10 system. I'm using the Java Admin Gui on Solaris to manage the system. In the Java gui, I went to NetBackup Management -> Catalog and performed a search. Among other things, it returned that on 04/26/2008, there was a backup done. The policy/schedule that has been used was a full backup and has a retention period of 1 month. Backup was performed to tape. So far, so good. Now I went to Media and Device Management -> Media. There I'm having a look at the tape with the Media ID, that was shown in the catalog search. The GUI shows, that the tape is in the Scratch pool and that it has never been mounted and never been assigned. I do not understand this. Why does the Catalog search (and also the Detailed Status listing of this job) show that this tape has been mounted and written on, while the media listing shows that tape as being unused? Michael ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
