Re: [Veritas-bu] SSO between HP-UX and Windows
If the drive is SCSI reserved by another host, how can EMS probing a drive cause it to rewind? Now maybe if EMS on the server that's using the device probes the device on the server as it's using it, that could cause problems. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rosenkoetter, Gabriel Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:48 AM To: BeDour, Wayne Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] SSO between HP-UX and Windows Unless I'm mistaken, you do still need to deactivate EMS monitoring of stape devices on HP-UX, because it'll probe devices that are SCSI-reserved by other hosts through a rewind device, causing the tape to rewind under an active backup. (But maybe that's less broken under 11iv3? I'm not sure, I haven't tried recently.) -- gabriel rosenkoetter Radian Group Inc, Unix/Linux/VMware Sysadmin / Backup Recovery [EMAIL PROTECTED], 215 231 1556 From: Martin Ruslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:49 PM To: BeDour, Wayne Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] SSO between HP-UX and Windows No problem at all.. just using the wizard, it's the recommended way according to the manual guide. Regards, mTz On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:46 AM, BeDour, Wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our environment, HP-UX 11-31 with a SureStore 20/700 tape library, one master / media server running NetBackup 6.5.2 backing up mainly HP servers with a few Sun and Windows boxes thrown in. We would like to configure one Windows SAN media server, use SSO to share two tape drives with our HP Master on the 20/700. We are not currently using SSO and my only exposure so far is the manual. Anyone like to share suggestions or what to look out for in setting this up? Thanks in advance Wayne BeDour Unix System Administrator PH: 313-593-9876 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** ** LEGAL DISCLAIMER ** ** This E-mail message and any attachments may contain legally privileged, confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this E-mail message from your computer. ___ 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] SSO between HP-UX and Windows
SCSI reserve should be effective regardless of how NetBackup is configured. My understanding is that if an initiator has issued a SCSI reserve command to a drive, no other initiator can mess with the drive until a SCSI release is issued or the drive is reset. We had this issue with drives rewinding way back in the 3.4 days, and enabling SCSI reserve cured the problem. As long as NetBackup on the media server running the backup issues the SCSI reserve, no other server should be able to cause a rewind. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: Rosenkoetter, Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:13 PM To: Forester, Jack L; BeDour, Wayne Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] SSO between HP-UX and Windows SCSI reserve only applies on the host in question. NetBackup has a fancy scheme constructed for SSO that checks other known media servers' SCSI reserves, but the protocol itself doesn't allow for shared access. That means that any host that's not configured properly as a media server but does see the drives and any process on any host that is configured properly but isn't NetBackup can screw with drives other hosts are using. -- gabriel rosenkoetter Radian Group Inc, Unix/Linux/VMware Sysadmin / Backup Recovery [EMAIL PROTECTED], 215 231 1556 From: Forester, Jack L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:11 PM To: Rosenkoetter, Gabriel; BeDour, Wayne Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] SSO between HP-UX and Windows If the drive is SCSI reserved by another host, how can EMS probing a drive cause it to rewind? Now maybe if EMS on the server that's using the device probes the device on the server as it's using it, that could cause problems. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rosenkoetter, Gabriel Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 11:48 AM To: BeDour, Wayne Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] SSO between HP-UX and Windows Unless I'm mistaken, you do still need to deactivate EMS monitoring of stape devices on HP-UX, because it'll probe devices that are SCSI-reserved by other hosts through a rewind device, causing the tape to rewind under an active backup. (But maybe that's less broken under 11iv3? I'm not sure, I haven't tried recently.) -- gabriel rosenkoetter Radian Group Inc, Unix/Linux/VMware Sysadmin / Backup Recovery [EMAIL PROTECTED], 215 231 1556 From: Martin Ruslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:49 PM To: BeDour, Wayne Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] SSO between HP-UX and Windows No problem at all.. just using the wizard, it's the recommended way according to the manual guide. Regards, mTz On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:46 AM, BeDour, Wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our environment, HP-UX 11-31 with a SureStore 20/700 tape library, one master / media server running NetBackup 6.5.2 backing up mainly HP servers with a few Sun and Windows boxes thrown in. We would like to configure one Windows SAN media server, use SSO to share two tape drives with our HP Master on the 20/700. We are not currently using SSO and my only exposure so far is the manual. Anyone like to share suggestions or what to look out for in setting this up? Thanks in advance Wayne BeDour Unix System Administrator PH: 313-593-9876 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ** ** LEGAL DISCLAIMER ** ** This E-mail message and any attachments may contain legally privileged, confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this E-mail message from your computer. ___ 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] It appears 6.0MP7 is out.
The Symantec website shows the publish date of these files as 9/23. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Piszcz Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 12:57 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] It appears 6.0MP7 is out. Does anyone know the date it was released? -rw-r--r-- 1 30024 30024 658710016 Sep 22 14:58 NB_CLT_60_7_M_308528.tar -rw-r--r-- 1 30024 3002415061504 Sep 22 11:57 NB_DB2_60_7_M_308539.tar Is there an e-mail list for new versions? Justin. ___ 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] Device configuration issue
Greetings, We're having some problems with device configuration on our media servers. We normally run tpautoconf -a -v with great success, but now it seems to think that another device configuration is already in progress. We get the message Another device configuration is already in progress.. Additionally, when we try to configure the devices manually using tpconfig, there is no confirmation message indicating the device was successfully added. There is also no error message indicating failure. It just silently ignores it. Has anyone else seen this behavior? We had this problem a couple weeks ago, and restarting NetBackup on the master server cured it, however, I'd like to know more about the problem. 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] Device configuration issue
The master server is Solaris 10. The problem is affecting all media servers...solaris, hp-ux, and windows. I checked for the tpac.lock file on the master, but no joy. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:34 AM To: Forester, Jack L; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Device configuration issue What platform are you on? I had a similar problem in Windows, and ended up killing the NetBackup processes to get around this. Simon -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forester, Jack L Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:24 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Device configuration issue Greetings, We're having some problems with device configuration on our media servers. We normally run tpautoconf -a -v with great success, but now it seems to think that another device configuration is already in progress. We get the message Another device configuration is already in progress.. Additionally, when we try to configure the devices manually using tpconfig, there is no confirmation message indicating the device was successfully added. There is also no error message indicating failure. It just silently ignores it. Has anyone else seen this behavior? We had this problem a couple weeks ago, and restarting NetBackup on the master server cured it, however, I'd like to know more about the problem. 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 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] Removing 6.5.2 and going back to 6.5.1
What? Restore the catalog just to back out a patch? That's crazy! The 6.0 releases can undo database changes when backing out a patch. Either your support rep is bonkers or Symantec is being lazy with their patch uninstall procedure. ...becoming more and more disillusioned with Symantec and NetBackup Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mconner1201 Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 10:50 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Removing 6.5.2 and going back to 6.5.1 Symantec Tech Support says that since there were changes in the database when upgrading to 6.5.2, I will need to restore the catalog from 6.5.1. +-- |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] FW: no jobs on activity monitor after hardware migration
Yes, this happened to us as well. Job history is probably not backed up in the catalog backup. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Asiye Yigit Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 7:29 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] FW: no jobs on activity monitor after hardware migration Hi All, I have a question. We have migratede netbackup master server to the new box. After migration, in the new master activity monitor, there are no jobs related past. It starts from the scratch. Is it normal? ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] rebuild sg after adding rob ot/drives
What is the problem with that patch? I have it on my Solaris 10 systems and haven't had any problems with devices, and I just configured a new library and drives a week ago. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 6:00 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] rebuild sg after adding rob ot/drives Okay, the problem was that I had patch 125081-16 on Solaris 10. Patchrm'ing it and installing 125081-08 and rebooting -- -r fixed the problem. David_Lowenstein@ sd.vrtx.com Sent by: To veritas-bu-bounce veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc urn.edu Subject Re: [Veritas-bu] rebuild sg after 06/16/2008 05:34 adding rob ot/drives PM To give a little more info, I'm doing this step by step: http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/266501.htm Maybe I have the wrong max targets and max luns setting? I'm assuming that since the tape drives are at c4t2d1 and c5t4d0 I won't need anything higher than 4 targets (t4) and 2 luns (d1), But I've tried like 15 targets and 7 luns and a bunch of other junk, just to see if it will catch. Again, mt sees the drives, cfgadm sees them, but sgscan -v conf all doesn't. ___ 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] Ip change on master server
You can change the IP address, just make sure that you change all references (host files, DNS) that are used by the master, media servers, and clients. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Baumann, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 8:27 AM To: Jerry Rioux; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Ip change on master server I'm not 100% sure, but I was always told no, you cannot change the IP. Maybe someone else can help, sorry. -Kevin -Original Message- From: Jerry Rioux [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 8:23 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Ip change on master server Quick question: Can you change the ip address on a master server? I know you can't change the hostname, but I can't remember if you can change the ip address without any issues. AIX master 6.0 mp2 Thanks -- Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com ___ 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] ACSLS 7.1 to 7.2
We did the same thing. We moved it to a new server. Installed ACSLS and audited the library. No issues. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Harry Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:49 AM To: Hudson, Steve; Scott Jacobson; nbu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] ACSLS 7.1 to 7.2 We recently upgraded to ACSLS 7.2. It was very simple with no DB issues. Of course we did not migrate the database. We did a fresh install and a library audit populated the new database... Harry S. Atlanta From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hudson, Steve Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:21 PM To: Scott Jacobson; nbu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] ACSLS 7.1 to 7.2 I will be doing this soon as well so I am also interested in real world experiences. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Jacobson Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:41 AM To: nbu Subject: [Veritas-bu] ACSLS 7.1 to 7.2 Has anyone upgraded their ACSLS 7.1 to 7.2? Just curious if there were any issues with database migration from Informix to Postgres? I didn't see anything on the topic at Backup Central. The instructions from the StorageTek 7.2 ICAG look straight forward, but looks can be deceiving. Any experiences, suggestions or guidelines would be appreciated. Thanks, Scott The information contained in this email message and its attachments is intended only for the private and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above, unless the sender expressly agrees otherwise. Transmission of email over the Internet is not a secure communications medium. If you are requesting or have requested the transmittal of personal data, as defined in applicable privacy laws by means of email or in an attachment to email you must select a more secure alternate means of transmittal that supports your obligations to protect such personal data. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient and/or you have received this email in error, you must take no action based on the information in this email and you are hereby notified that any dissemination, misuse, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the original message. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] External event caused rewind during write.
I've seen the external event message before here, and it was due to SCSI reserve not being set on the drive, allowing another host to send commands to the drive while the backup was being written to the tape. But this was back in the 3.4 days. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Lightner Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 11:27 AM To: Justin Piszcz; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] External event caused rewind during write. We've seen it and it appears to be the drive itself (LTO-1/Ultrium). FYI: This corrupts the backup so when you try to restore later it will give you messages about bad tar headers. Do NOT rely on this backup even if you later see 0 exit status. We even had one drive that it appeared it corrupted EXISTING backups on a tape when it mounted it and experienced this issue. It appears the vendor actually sent the drive back to us without correcting this behavior so we had to send it back. We now record the Serial Number and problem for all drives we send back so we'll know if we get a refurbished drive back later and experience the same problem we'll be able to gig the support vendor. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Piszcz Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 6:33 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] External event caused rewind during write. 1204936626 1 132 16 media-server-name 2429907 2429907 0 client-name bptm FREEZING media id CA1234, External event caused rewind during write, all data on media is lost Anyone ever seen this before? What is this usually caused by, bad/old media, or? Justin. ___ 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 ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup Device Configuration in a Cluster
I believe that you DO still need to configure the devices on both nodes, even if the device configuration is identical. I think NetBackup uses the drive serial number to determine which drive is which. We're doing a new library/drive implementation, and I had to fail Netbackup between the servers to delete the old drives even though the device config was the same (simplifies admin to keep them that way). I believe that the EMM database keeps separate device configs for each node in the cluster, even if they are the same. Back in the pre 5.x days when the whole enchilada (application and catalogs) failed over, you HAD to have indentical drive configs of all cluster nodes. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:59 AM To: Esson, Paul; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup Device Configuration in a Cluster Discalimer: I haven't implemented the exact scenario you are describing (SF-HA on Sol-10), but have kludged something similar. you need to configure your drives to the OS so that the drive config is common on each node. NBU doesn't care too much about the actual PCI device path, but rather just the drive index (it's location in the library) and the device file name. Normally when you discover your tape devices, the OS numbers them, as /dev/rmt/0cbn, 1cbn, 2cbn, etcso when you configure the second box, it will reorder the numbers. you can hardcode the correlation between the device and the /dev/rmt entry in your /etc/devlink.tab so that /dev/rmt/0cbn on node A is the same drive as on node B. Once this is done, there isn't even any need to failover to the second node and reconfig, as the config from node A will be applicable to node B as well. Paul -- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Esson, Paul Sent: February 27, 2008 9:32 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup Device Configuration in a Cluster Folks, I am looking for advice/understanding of device configuration in a cluster scenario. My specifics are Solaris 10 Master/Media with NetBackup 6.5 atop Storage Foundation HA in a two node topology. The robot is a Quantum Scalar i2000 with FC drives. The only reference I can find suggests configuring the devices through the wizard on the active node then failing the service over to the other node and repeating the exercise. However I am struggling to understand how both sets of information are maintained in the EMM? Regards, Paul Esson Redstor Limited Direct: +44 (0) 1224 595381 Mobile: +44 (0) 7766 906514 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web:www.redstor.com REDSTOR LIMITED Torridon House 73-75 Regent Quay Aberdeen UK AB11 5AR Disclaimer: The information included in this e-mail is of a confidential nature and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, any disclosure, copying or distribution by you is prohibited and may be unlawful. Disclosure to any party other than the addressee, whether inadvertent or otherwise is not intended to waive privilege or confidentiality. La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu. ___ Veritas-bu maillist -
[Veritas-bu] 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
[Veritas-bu] Aptare Storage Console vs. Veritas Backup Reporter
I'm looking at reporting tools for NetBackup, and was wondering if anyone has done a head-to-head comparison of Storage Console vs. Backup Reporter. Aptare has always received high praise here, and the Veritas product, well, has never been mentioned in the same breath as Aptare. I've heard that Backup reporter has improved over the years, but can it yet hold a candle to Storage Console? 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] NBU 6.0 MP3 - backups not scheduled; nbpem hangs and does not terminate gracefully
Trying to resurrect an issue from over a year ago as we're getting bit now: Has anyone come across the issue below? After upgrading to NBU 6.0 MP3 we are experiencing problems: * backup are not scheduled (probably caused by nbpem process hanging) * nbpem daemon does not terminate when stopping Netbackup (bp.kill_all). We found a work around - kill -9; then delete all LOCK files under bpsched.d directory. Looks as it fixed the issue last time. Is there a proper, permanent fix? Looks like the problem still exists in MP5 with some additional engineering binaries applied. Anyone else still being affected? 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] Host Name Change on Master Server
Heck, as of 6.0, you can't even change the underlying host name of the nodes in a cluster if you're running a clustered environment. I'm getting ready to upgrade my master server cluster to beefier boxes and wanted to use new hostnames for the cluster nodes so they could be brought up alongside the existing servers. The node names are in the EMM database now. The intention was to leave the hostname associated with netbackup the same, but support said that while that would work pre-6.0, it is unsupported in 6.0+. Of course, they'd be more than happy to get consulting involved...for a [hefty] fee, of course. Grr. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Wilts Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:53 PM To: Jimenez, Daniel Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Host Name Change on Master Server This is not supported in any current release of NetBackup. Customers have asked for many years but it hasn't made it to the of the priority list yet. .../Ed On 11/27/07, Jimenez, Daniel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We are looking to change the name of our Master server (Windows 2003 Server) and would like to know what changes need to be made so that the catalog and everything else works after this change has been made? Please be as detailed as possible, thanks in advance. Daniel Jimenez Data Protection Team -- 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
[Veritas-bu] FW: Replacement of StorageTek/SUN SN6000
We have 2 SN6000s here. They're not libraries or robots. They can perform tape viurtualization. They present a set of virtual drives to the media servers which they can dynamically map to physical tapes on the back end. No disk involved, and the physical and logical drives can be of different types. They work with ACSLS as an ACSLS proxy. There's other features, too like replication where the host writes one stream of data, but the SN6000 actually writes it to multiple tapes. We never used that feature. We're preparing to decommission our SN6000s. They're not being replaced with anything - we're just going to give the media servers direct access to the tape drives. We're adding a pair of VTLs to the environment, but not as a replacement of the '6000s. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Piszcz Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 6:27 AM To: Didier BRUN Cc: WALLEBROEK Bart; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Replacement of StorageTek/SUN SN6000 The best Sun/STK robot out there now is the SL8500, not sure what the SN6000 looked like though. Can hold up to 64 drives, is ACSLS-driven and has 10,000 slots if fully expanded. On Wed, 24 Oct 2007, Didier BRUN wrote: Hi Bart, We have 6 SN6000 and we are looking for another solution too. So Anyone else has another/better solution to replace an SN6000 ? Thanks, Didier BRUN. WALLEBROEK Bart a écrit : As the StorageTek/SUN SN6000 will soon b out of support we need to look for something else. Pitty because it worked very well with NetBackup. Suggestion we've got from SUN was to replace the SN6000 with lot's of SSO licenses. Problem is that I had some experience before with SSO and it is not that easy to configure and troubleshoot. Anyone else has another/better solution to replace an SN6000 ? Thanx, Bart Wallebroek ___ 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] Cost of VTL vs DSU
That's the opposite of what our Symantec rep and resellers told us. We're getting 2 EDL4400s and are paying by the TB. Not sure why Symantec feels they're entitled to it, I think maybe Symantec has hired some former RIAA execs. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Whittaker Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 3:18 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Cost of VTL vs DSU I have asked my account rep multiple times and been explained that I do not have to license my VTL (EMC CDL720). Since it is presented as a real robot to the OS, then NetBackup has no clue that it is not a robot. So, there is not always a cost for the VTL, depending on how you do the setup. Kevin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Horalek Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 1:34 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Cost of VTL vs DSU 6.5 uses a sliding capacity model. 1-20TB would be priced about same per TB. Above 20TB the discount gets greater. Under Traditonal Model 6.5 $995 List per TB Usable Capacity NBU for VTL (VTO) $0 DSU Free $995 List DSU per TB with NetBackup Flexible Disk Option(FDO) (Advanced Disk and SharedDisk) Enterprise Model 6.5 $11,995 List per FE Terabytes includes Vault,SSO,FDO,VTO,OSO,NAS Snapvault,NDMP) Most every thing you will ever need. FE Front End, basically the total of all your fulls. Minus all copies of redundant data. Netbackup 6.0 $1000 per TB VTL Can't do NDMP to a DSU as far as I know. Need Tape or VTL for NDMP. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of dy018 Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 2:45 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Cost of VTL vs DSU Hi, anyone having both VTL and DSU in your backup environment? or anyone here did a compare between the both? I just need to know the Veritas Licenses cost for VTL and DSU if i want to implement a 20TB Disk Storage. Thanks +-- |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 maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup 6.5 VTL direct to tape
We're going to be installing a couple of EMC EDLs, and they have the option of installing a NetBackup media server on the EDL to perform duplications. That should keep the catalog in sync. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of drpaine10 Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:27 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup 6.5 VTL direct to tape I'm looking for information on how netbackup allows a VTL to write directly to tape and still maintain the catalog information of the second copy. Is it a requirement to line up the physical and virtual tape id's ? +-- |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] Catalog backups not running, error 230
I was wondering if anyone else has had a similar problem. We're running 6.0 MP4 in our test environment (Solaris 9 master server). I noticed that the catalog backup hadn't started on time, so I attempted to run it manually, but nothing happened. Thinking I hadn't properly tried to initiate a manual backup of the policy, I tried again. Still nothing. Digging into the logs, I noticed the message specified policy does not exist in the configuration database associated with my attempts to run the catalog backup policy. So, I'm thinking what the hell? Long story short: I deleted the policy, and recreated it. Same result. I can see the policy in the GUI and with bpplinfo. The catalog backup ran successfully the day before. The only thing I did was to make a change to the start window of the weekly full schedule of the policy. I've tried manually running the weekly full and the daily incrementals, both with the same result. We're opening a support ticket with Symantec, but maybe the collective intelligence of the group will come up with a solution faster. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Has anyone done benchmarking of any sort with..
I'll back this up, too. We're going to install a couple large VTLs this year, and Symantec wants to license only by size. For the size we are getting, it would be cheaper to license by size only if we were going to configure over 100 virtual drives on each one. I blasted them over their VTL license as the value of the VTL comes from the VTL itself, not the extortion fee you have to pay Symantec to permit you to use it with NetBackup. I suggested that they over both options - license by size or license by number of drives - whichever is most cost effective for the customer. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis Preston Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 11:20 AM To: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Has anyone done benchmarking of any sort with.. It's also possible, I believe, I'd have to check the licenses, to license VTL as VTL by virtual drive. Not according to Symantec. That's the point _I'm_ making. ;) ___ 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] NBU 6.0 - Patience required
We upgraded to 6.0MP4 from 5.1 a little over a month ago. In general I think it's better than 5.1, but has anyone else noticed that certain operations take longer? Running vmoprcmd takes 90 seconds on our systems now whereas it used to take a couple of seconds before. Also, getting the media server list in 'host porperties' in the GUI takes 3-4 minutes. Anyone else finding that using 6.0 is a lesson in patience? 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] Upgrade question
3.4 - 4.5 was a cakewalk compared to 4.5 - 5.1 and 5.1 - 6.0 Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Piszcz Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 1:28 PM To: David McWilliams Cc: NetBackup List Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Upgrade question On Thu, 28 Jun 2007, David McWilliams wrote: How successful will I be trying to go from 3.4 to 6? I assume I have to 3.4 - 4 - 5 - 6. Sláinte, David Checkout the, sometimes updated, McWilliams family website @ http://davidmcw.tripod.com Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ Wow, I hope you can jump through fire :) I have only started at 4.5+ up which seemed easy enough, you'd have to dig up the docs for 3.4 - 4.5 though. Also, you should backup your entire environment before you do something like that so you can easily revert back if it doesn't work out so well. Also it'd be good to do it in stages, go to 4.5, sit for a week, then 5.1mp6, then sit for a week, etc. Justin. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup 6 upgrade - special policy types
Seconded on the cluster stuff. We upgraded from 4.5 to 5.1 a couple years ago, and the changes for a clustered environment were significant. We have a support contract with Veritas, and made use of it for that upgrade. They sent me a pdf document that contained lessons tech support learned from others doing that upgrade. That document was of tremendous assistance in that upgrade. I'm preparing to upgrade our test environment from 5.1 to 6.0MP4 next week. The key here is *preparation* -- don't even consider doing the upgrade without investing the time to be thoroughly prepared. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rcarlisle Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 1:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Jeff Lightner' Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup 6 upgrade - special policy types Abhishek, One important thing to be aware of is cluster configuration. If your master server is clustered, this may be a much hardeer upgrade and you may really want to look at consulting. Version 5.1 and above significantly changed the way NBU works with clustered master servers. I don't know if you are clustered or not, but something to really watch for. Reneé Carlisle ServerWare Corporation From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:48 PM To: Jeff Lightner Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup 6 upgrade - special policy types Hi All, We are upgrading our environment from Netbackup 4.5 to 6.0, Can someone please provide me the steps that i need to follow for the upgradation. Thanks in Advance. Rgds Abhishek Jeff Lightner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/30/2007 11:04 PM To veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu cc Subject [Veritas-bu] Netbackup 6 upgrade - special policy types OK we're getting ready to do upgrade from 5.1 to 6.0 mid-June. I've seen all the notes about being sure to clean up catalogs etc... and my coworker who is planning the upgrade has run the nbcc and done all sorts of other preparations. My question is does anyone know of any special actions that need to be taken for backups such as: Exchange Oracle RMAN Microsoft SQL If you only know information about one of the above please provide that - I'd just like to be sure there's nothing we're missing on these things especially since the latter two at least are typically initiated from client side.___ 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] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4
Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in October. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle, Stuart Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4 yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing --stuart From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wigington Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4 Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0 MP4? TIA, Mike Wig Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 MP4
Argh...I knew someone was going to ask me that. I should have had that info ready. I found the info on Veritas' site. I'm looking for it again now. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 9:59 AM To: Forester, Jack L; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 MP4 can I have confirmation of this please or a web site or link ?? Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B23AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Forester, Jack L Sent: 14 May 2007 14:49 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to6.0 MP4 Something else to consider is that end of support for 5.x is in October. Jack L. Forester, Jr. UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf Lockheed Martin Information Technology (304) 625-3946 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Liddle, Stuart Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 2:00 PM To: Mike Wigington; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4 yeahwait for 6.5, that's what we are doing --stuart From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wigington Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:55 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Taking the plunge to upgrade from 5.1 MP4 to 6.0 MP4 Can anyone give advise on upgrading from NBU5.1 MP 4 to NBU6.0 MP4? TIA, Mike Wig Ahhh...imagining that irresistible new car smell? Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http:/autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ ylc=X3oDMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM- 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] Jobs won't go active
I've recently added a few new SAN media servers to my environment NBU 5.1MP5) and we are trying to run some test backups from these servers. The job gets submitted and shows up queued in the activity monitor and stays that way. I left one like that overnight, and it was still queued this morning. The media servers are HPUX with a Solaris master. I've checked bpsched, bprd, and bpcd logs on the master server as well as the bprd and bpcd logs on the media server. Nothing is screaming out as to why jobs from these new media servers will not go active. Other jobs to other media servers are going active almost immediately. What other things should I look into? I've checked name resolution, traceroutes in both directions, and have a support call open with Symantec. These new servers are supposed to go live this weekend. Argh! 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
