Re: [Veritas-bu] Syncsort NSB vs Netbackup?

[Travis Kelley]

This is not true (yet).  We've recently talked do DD engineering in addition
to trying it ourselves and confirmed both ways that optimized synthetics
aren't  currently  supported.
On Sep 30, 2011 3:28 AM, "David Stanaway"  wrote:
> When did this get announced?
>
> I have been bugging our EMC Backup rep about this, I would have figured
> they would have been all over giving me the news.
>
> On 9/30/2011 1:14 AM, smpt wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Just a hint.
>> If you will use NBU and DD with BOOST, the synthetic backups are instant.
NO
>> reading and writing to device.
>> In fact this is a future of all OST devices.
>>
>> stefanos
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
>> [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of dejohn61
>> Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:56 AM
>> To: VERITAS-BU@MAILMAN.ENG.AUBURN.EDU
>> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Syncsort NSB vs Netbackup?
>>
>> Hi Ken,
>> Yes I would have to use there snap capabilities with the dedup so I
believe
>> they consider that synthetic fulls. after the initial full data set. I am
>> pushing for a Data Domain solution the dedup ratio is much better, and to
>> answer your second question, That is one of my main arguments is getting
rid
>> of media servers to let the clients do all the work in our environment is
>> really scary thought.
>> So out of the 2 responses I received, I am very comfortable staying with
NBU
>> and a DD dedup solution.
>>
>> We also would have stuff we could not move over like AIX oracle and AIX
Unix
>>
>> Thanks for your input and any other Syncsort info is more than welcome
>> Don
>>
>> Two questions for you:
>> 1) Do/Would you use synthetic fulls (Syncsort does incrementals
>> forever)?
>> 2) Do your clients have the horsepower to handle source side
>> deduplication?
>>
>> We could not move as there are some legacy systems they do
>> not fully support in our environment.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: veritas-bu-bounces< at> mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-
>> bounces< at> mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of dejohn61
>> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 4:56 PM
>> To: VERITAS-BU< at> MAILMAN.ENG.AUBURN.EDU
>> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Syncsort NSB vs Netbackup?
>>
>> I would like to know if anyone has any information on Syncsort NSB? Pro's
>> and Con's, would anyone consider leaving Netbackup to go to Syncsort NSB
>> on NetApp in a large enterprise?
>>
>> +--
>> |This was sent by don.john...@watson.com via Backup Central.
>> |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.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
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Question for NetBackup 7.0 Dedup user OR Data Domain users

[Travis Kelley]

Data domain also has a limit to the amount of data one of their units
can track but its fairly high.  If you need more than 32TB of deduped
data in PD you do need to deploy a seperate puredisk environment. Then
PD just splits the hash space into chunks and stores data on whichever
node it hases to.  I'm not sure what their upper limit is but it can
scale quite high also.

On 8/24/10, judy_hinchcli...@administaff.com
 wrote:
> Remember that the built in de-dup as a limit on the amount of data it can
> keep track of.
> Over that amount you need to use a de-dup appliance.
>
>
> From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Alley, Chris
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:09 PM
> To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Question for NetBackup 7.0 Dedup user OR Data Domain
> users
>
> We are looking to change our backups to a disk based deduplication solution,
> and 2 of our options are to utilize NetBackup 7.0's built in dedupe (Client
> and Media server) or to put a Data Domain box in.  I wanted to see if I
> could get some real world feedback on what you guys have been seeing in
> terms of dedupe rates, performance, etc.  For example Data Domain claims we
> would only see about 5:1 dedupe rate using NetBackup, which seems quite a
> bit lower than what I would expectand of course they claim they would
> get about 20:1.  I realize that all data is different, which is why I have
> hopes that several people will reply with what they are seeing.  Thanks for
> your time!
>
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Your catalog size?

[Travis Kelley]

I have a 1TB and backups do take a while...but perhaps the most
annoying thing for me is an images on media report.  The full catalog
has to be scanned anytime you look for what images are on a tape.
Overall though there is no problem with a large catalog as long as you
manage it properly and have good disk to store it on.

On 7/22/10, Donaldson, Mark  wrote:
> It looks like we might be rolling out NB to an all new environment here.
> Dumping the existing product and doing a clean install of NB7.0.
>
> Symantec is recommending two master servers due to the size of the
> catalog.  Their reasoning is not the performance of the backups but
> rather then time necessary to restore the catalog in the event of a
> disaster.  We're not too worried about this aspect of it.  We're more
> likely use snapshot technology or other fast-restore methods. We'd
> rather have one (clustered) master server for the sake of ease of
> deployment.
>
> So - as a sanity check of the huge catalogs, how do you feel about a 1-2
> TB catalog?  Anybody running close to these sizes?
>
> -Mark
>
> 
> Mark Donaldson - Systems & Storage Administrator
>
> ___
> 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] Architectural question (staging)

[Travis Kelley]

I agree with Martin here on them "working" in some cases.  I have and
EMC Clariion with 45 1TB SATA disks and I can tell you it screams.  I
routienly see over 600MB/S out of the array wjile destaging.  Sure,  I
have a larger and potentially "smarter" array than some but to say
they don't ever work is wrong.

One other point in regard to fragmentation.  If you are truely using
the disks as a cache and aren't in need of the additional restore
performance they provide then as soon as destaging is done you can
just expire all of the images on disk.  Once you have them on tape,
you may not "need" them on disk anymore anyway.  If you are able to do
this somewhat regularly (as often as you determine is necessay to keep
performance up), fragmentation becomes a non-issue.  In my case
fragmentation has never been an issue anyway, because of the extremely
wide striping.  But if its an issue,  as long as you can clean down
the disk every once in a while, the problem goes away.

Also images are interleved on the disk in the sense that they are not
contigious on the disk from a block perspective, but the image files
are not "multiplexed" as they would be on tape.  Every backup image
has at least one file all its own.

Hope that help.
Travis

On 5/5/10, Martin, Jonathan  wrote:
> I'd hate not to disagree with someone as grumpy and disagreeable as Ed.
> Personally, I wouldn't take advice on this matter from someone who
> "worked with disk staging units for at least a year" and "gave up."
> (Also, I think Ed is a wet blanket.) I had this thing figured out 4
> years ago when we first implemented DSSUs in production. I may not be
> the biggest NBU shop on the planet, but I back up more than 50TB a week
> using this method exclusively, so I can tell you that it does work.
>
>
>
> As far "interleaving", there is most certainly interleaving at the file
> system level when you run multiple streams to a DSSU. How Ed can say
> there is no interleaving and then tell you to watch your disk
> fragmentation is beyond me. Fragmentation = disk interleaving as far as
> I am concerned. The point is that the files are non-contiguous.
>
>
>
> Here's my proof.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This is a snippit of a utility called DiskView from SysInternals /
> Microsoft. The yellow bits are the actual 1K fragments of data on disk
> for that image file above. The little red dots indicate the beginning
> and end of file fragments. There are 64 little yellow dots between the
> red dots indicating my 64K clusters.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here's that same section of disk, different image file. These two
> streams ran simultaneously last night (along with 6 others) and I can
> guarantee you that the top image wrote faster, and will destage to tape
> faster than the image below.
>
>
>
> Why? Imagine you are bpdupicate.exe requesting the first file back to
> write to tape. Compared to the 2nd image, you are going to get a lot
> more reading done and a lot less seeking as your head(s) cross the disk
> to pickup fragments. Or, so goes my theory.  There is a utility
> available from Dell that will show me the amount of time spent reading /
> writing versus seeking per disk but I didn't have the time to acquire it
> and test.
>
>
>
> Now, I know there are variables here. As I stated before, one of the big
> improvements to my speed was using a 64K cluster size. Last time I
> checked this wasn't available in Unix/Linux. Then again, ext2/3 file
> systems also like to leave "space" between their writes to account for
> file growth, which may help (but I doubt it.) I intended to test this
> several years back, but my management put the kibosh on Linux media
> servers. The raid controller, simultaneous read/write, spindle count,
> and disk type also add a lot of variability.
>
>
>
> I haven't tested any of this on a SAN volume, only on direct attached. I
> don't think there is much to be gained by taking a 6TB lun and
> partitioning it at the OS or breaking it into multiple luns at the SAN.
> After partitioning, the entire DSSU is still on the same raid group /
> set, which ultimately controls your performance. If you could take your
> 6TB lun and break it into 3 x 2TB raid groups / luns then I think that
> would help. I've actually considered breaking my 14 disk RAID5s into 14
> single disks for performance testing (single stream each), but that's an
> entirely different management nightmare (14 DSSUs per media server
> etc...) A single SATA disk can drive LTO3, assuming the data is all
> nicely lined up.  The minute that head has to go seeking, you are in a
> world of hurt.
>
>
>
> Again, I would start with a single stream to that 6TB DSSU and see what
> you get both writing to the DSSU and destaging to tape. Whatever
> performance you get out of that configuration is your best case
> scenario. Multiple streams or creating multiple partitions will only
> drag your numbers down. The crux of the issue (at least for me) is
> balancing the number of streams I need to run to get my bac

Re: [Veritas-bu] KMS issues in SSO environment?!

[Travis Kelley]

I'm running hardware LTO4 encrytion with 12 IBM LTO's in a Sun L1400
with KMS on nb 6.5.4 and haven't seen any issues.

On 3/4/10, Eagle, Kent  wrote:
> Greetings,
>
>
>
> We are running NBU 6.5.3.1 with a Quantum (ADIC) i2000 Scalar library.
> We currently have a bunch of LTO2 drives, but want to switch to LTO4 and
> get rid of our inline encryption appliances. We know about QEKM and
> QSKM, but are trying to go with a more vendor neutral solution. Also, an
> i500 or another i2000 library just to enable a built in feature of LTO4
> is going to be a tuff sell to the bean counters. L
>
>
>
> In doing my research, I discovered that there is an issue with status 83
> errors if you try to use KSM in an SSO environment. There are scant few
> technotes, etc.., but once you get deeper into the support matrix,
> people seem to know about it.
>
>
>
> Etrack #1765730 (Document ID #329579) indicates that it will be fixed in
> 6.5.6, which has not been posted for download yet.
>
> I can find no indication that NBU 7.x has this problem, or that it has
> been fixed. Having lived through all of the major upgrades, I know that
> support will be focused on 7.x problems before 6.x problems see
> daylight. At least that's the way it was from 3 to 4, 4 to 5, and 5 to
> 6.
>
>
>
> Has anyone received an engineering binary to address this, or were you
> able to wrangle more info out of Symnatec? Are you successfully running
> KSM right now in an SSO environment? I'd love to hear of any and all
> experiences, both negative (and hopefully) positive.
>
>
>
> P.S. - Yes, we've tested software based encryption; and the overhead was
> so great in our environment (plus the hit we took on compression) that
> it just isn't feasible.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kent
>
>
>
>
> Visit our website at www.wilmingtontrust.com
>
> Investment products are not insured by the FDIC or any other governmental
> agency, are not deposits of or other obligations of or guaranteed by
> Wilmington Trust or any other bank or entity, and are subject to risks,
> including a possible loss of the principal amount invested. This e-mail and
> any files transmitted with it may contain confidential and/or proprietary
> information.  It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity
> who is the intended recipient.  Unauthorized use of this information is
> prohibited.  If you have received this in error, please contact the sender
> by replying to this message and delete this material from any system it may
> be on.
>
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Boring Subject? - Adding LTO IV FC drives into an SL8500 with existing LTO II drives

[Travis Kelley]

If you don't care about the LTO4s being able to read the LTO 2 tapes
just change the media type to something different on the 4s (HCART2 or
HCART3).  Netbackup automatically will not load the "wrong" media type
in the "wrong" drive even if it is technically capable of reading it.

On 1/19/10, Scott Jacobson  wrote:
> Ok, I'll try again.
>
> Looking through some archives there are various discussions, but not that I
> can see with an SL8500/ACSLS environment.
>
> So, if anyone with experience sharing LTO II and LTO IV drives in the same
> non-partitioned library, I'd appreciate in hearing about their bar code
> labeling and other requirements that allows each drive type to coexist and
> work with each other.
>
> BONUS QUESTION- Anyone with the each of these drive types that are running
> Vault Tape Duplication, any tips on what not to try or run?
>
> Thanks - sj
>
> I'll pass on own my assumptions and ask for clarifications from the group.
>
> NBU 6.5.1
> ACSLS 7.1
> SL8500 - standard basic install
>
> I'm not looking to do any partitioning which I believe requires ACSLS 7.2,
> but I'm not sure if 7.2 is still required for what I'm wanting to do.
>
> I'm going to add four LTO IV drives and what I understand is the new L4
> labeling versus the existing L2 suffix is all that is need for ACSLS,
> library and NBU to distinguish the between the differences of tapes and
> drives, or is the creation of another volume group also required.
>
> Any prerequisites, top down review or configuration requirements are
> appreciated - thank you in advance.
>
> Scott J.
>
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Master with multiple NIC's

[Travis Kelley]

I honestly don't know if its supported but we do this just using the
routing table. We've done this for years without issue.

On 1/14/10, A Darren Dunham  wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 10:05:01PM +0100, WALLEBROEK Bart wrote:
>> Is it supported in NBU that a Solaris Master/Media has multiple NIC's for
>> backups of different clients on different networks ?
>
> Sure.
>
>> Master has 2 network interfaces.  Interface A goes to network A to backup
>> clients on network A;  Interface B goes to network B to backup clients on
>> network B.
>>
>> If it is supported how is this configured in NBU ?
>
> If your OS knows it is on both subnets, then the routing table will
> allow it to do that automatically.
>
>> The REQUIRED_INTERFACE option is to make sure that all NBU traffic
>> goes over the configured network interface but you can only configure
>> 1 interface.  Or am I wrong here.
>
> That can be used to override certain things, but as you note, it is a
> rather large hammer.  Better if you can avoid using it at all.  In your
> setup, it wouldn't seem to be necessary.
>
> --
> Darren
> ___
> 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] Sun Trunking vs. Redhat Linux ???

[Travis Kelley]

Echoing Peter, I have used the linux bponding with LACP on the switch
to bond 2 gige linls together and was able to get 1800 Mb/s through
them on a Sun x4200.  One thing to watch out for is your inter switch
trunks.  We also had to upgrade our interswitch trunks, but I assume
your network is already designed to handle this kind of traffic.

On 10/1/09, Peter DrakeUnderkoffler  wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Yes, it is called bonding.  It has several options
> for configuration, you would be looking at running
> it in a load balancing configuration with LACP,
> the /etc/modprobe.conf settings for that would
> be something like:
>
> options bond0 lacp_rate=1 mode=4 miimon=100
>
> But this will also depend on your switch vendor.
>
> I've only used two(2) NICs in a trunk, so I would
> imagine you have some testing ahead of you to not only
> get it to function as you wish, but also get the desired
> throughput.
>
> Thanks
> Peter
>
> Peter DrakeUnderkoffler
> Xinupro, LLC
> 617-834-2352
>
>
>
> thomas.sch...@cortalconsors.de wrote:
>>
>>
>> We run two SUN V490 Server as NBU 6.0 Media Server.
>>
>> Over four 1GB NICs we have a SUN Trunking running.
>>
>> Now we plan to migrate the Media Applikation to four DELL r710 Servers.
>>
>> Is there a Redhat Linux feature like SUN Trunking availiable ?
>>
>> Cortal Consors S.A. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland, Bahnhofstraße 55,
>> D-90402 Nürnberg, HR Nürnberg B 20075, USt-IdNr. DE225900761
>>
>> Sitz der Cortal Consors S.A.: 1, boulevard Haussmann, F-75318 Paris
>> cedex 09, Registergericht: R.C.S. Paris 327 787 909
>> Président du Conseil d'Administration (Verwaltungsratsvorsitzender) und
>> Directeur Général (Generaldirektor) der Cortal Consors S.A.: Olivier Le
>> Grand
>> Leitung der Zweigniederlassung Deutschland: Martin Daut (CEO
>> Deutschland), Olivier Le Grand, Richard Döppmann, Pascal Grundrich
>>
>> Before printing, think about environmental responsibility!
>> Bitte denken Sie über Ihre Verantwortung gegenüber der Umwelt nach,
>> bevor Sie diese E-Mail ausdrucken.
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iD8DBQFKxLQhl+lekZRM55oRAuMHAKCRUKXrHbLzrGuIhGmmAJ+HSZ/WzACgzLCy
> WCfkFpb/iWJaeGVGb5Q1UJA=
> =lH57
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> ___
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO4 Question

[Travis Kelley]

Don, thanks for the information on the Netbackup KMS.  We have tried
it in testing and as you mentioned, it appears to work perfectly with
IBM LTO4 drives.  We spoke with our symantec rep about this and he
indicated that in NB 7 this feature would be moved to a for pay
feature.  We have long term retentions on many of our tapes and hence,
would pretty much be forced to purchase the KMS license when it came
out if we started using it now.  Do you have any information on the
longer term plans for the KMS and if there would be a way to restore
old data if we decided not to purchase KMS when it became a for-pay
feature?

On 6/18/09, Don Peterson  wrote:
> You said:
>
> I do not know if the Decru LKM can do this.
>
> But we are planning to do LTO4 native encryption with IBM tape drives in
> an IBM 3584 tape library.
> We found that the EMC RSA key manager will handle keys for the LTO-4
> tape drives. But to do so you have to have the IBM EKM (Encryption Key
> Manager) installed.
> And of course the EKM or the TIVOLI key manager can also work.
> I would be interested in learning what others have learned about LTO4
> Native encryption with IBM LTO4 tape drives installed in a IBM tape
> library.
>
>
> The LKM cannot directly manage LTO encryption keys because it can't
> communicate with the tape drive via SCSI.
>
> NBU 6.5.2 added a Key Management Service (KMS), which is included (free)
> with an Enterprise Server or Server license. The NBU KMS generates and
> manages keys for any tape drive compatible with the SCSI T10 encryption
> spec. This includes LTO4, 3592 and T1000B (with very recent firmware)
> tape drives, using those drives in any tape library supported by NBU.
> See a NBU 6.5.2 or later Documentation Update, in which there is a
> chapter titled "Data at rest key management", for all the information
> you need to use this. This is very easy to setup and use.
>
> Once there is an industry standard for key managers exchanging keys, NBU
> will be able to allow the Decru/NetApp LKM to store all the keys, while
> NBU provides the keys to the tape drive. We are already talking with
> NetApp about LKM integration with NBU.
>
> Don Peterson
> Product Manager, NetBackup
> Symantec Corporation
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Encryption and compression

[Travis Kelley]

Yoiu are correct that encrypted data is not compressible.  Netbackups
client based encrytion knows this and will apply compression first
then encryption.  If you use client based encryption, then client
based compression is your onlu option.  Hardware compression on your
tape drives will be effectively worthless.

On 5/22/09, James Pattinson  wrote:
> Hi All
>
> Does anyone know if NetBackup's client encryption option compresses the
> data before it's encrypted?
>
> If not am I right in assuming that this data won't be compressible even
> by hardware compression afterwards :)
>
> Cheers
> James
> ___
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Manually eject tapes with vmchange

[Travis Kelley]

Try:

Vmchange -res -multi_eject -rn $robotnum -rt $robottype -rh $robothost
-ml $tapeid -single_cycle

I'm sure all of these switches aren't necessary but it never hurts to
be specific.

On 4/29/09, Baumann, Kevin  wrote:
> All,
>
>
>
> I am trying to write a script that will eject tapes and I am using the
> following command:
>
>
>
> vmchange -res -multi_eject -rn 0 -rt TLD -rh robot_control_host -ml mediaID
>
>
> This works fine the first time, but the robot no longer works and I need to
> restart Netbackup for the robot to do anything again.  Robtest does not even
> work, it just waits to open the robot device.
>
>
>
> Has anyone seen this before?
>
>
>
> NB Version: 6.5.3
>
> Master server OS: Solaris 10
>
> Robot control server OS: SuSE Linux 10
>
>
>
> The robot is an IBM 3584.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Kevin
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] question on key manager for IBM lto-4 tape drives and Netbackup

[Travis Kelley]

I should have said you must use media from a VOLUME POOlL whose name
begins with a prefix of ENCR_.

On 2/9/09, Travis Kelley  wrote:
> I've used the netbackup KMS and it does work fine, although its sort
> of a kluge right now in my opinion.  Currently you are limited to 2
> keychains and you must use media from a policy whose name begins with
> a prefix of ENCR_ (for instance ENCR_Offsite).  I've talked with our
> account rep and they state that they "anticipate" to raise the number
> of keys that can be managed in NB.7.  They also anticipate it to
> become a chargable item after the expansion but haven't worked out the
> details yet.
>
> It seems like functionality that still needs a good bit of work and
> will probably get it in the future but is now more of a POC.  On the
> plus side...its currently free and works fine in my experience, so its
> great to try out if you already have the LTO4 drives.
>
> On 2/8/09, Len Boyle  wrote:
>> Good Day,
>>
>> We have a few IBM LTO-4 tape drives for which,  we would like to start
>> using
>> the build in encryption support with Netbackup 6.5.3
>>
>>
>>
>> Early reading seems to indicate that there are at least two key managers
>> to
>> choose from.
>>
>> The first is IBM's EKM java key manager.
>>
>> The second is Netbackup's KMS, which came out as part  Netbackup 6.5.2 .
>>
>> Does anyone have experience with these two products that they can share.
>> Experiences  both good and bad.
>>
>> Thanks len
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] question on key manager for IBM lto-4 tape drives and Netbackup

[Travis Kelley]

I've used the netbackup KMS and it does work fine, although its sort
of a kluge right now in my opinion.  Currently you are limited to 2
keychains and you must use media from a policy whose name begins with
a prefix of ENCR_ (for instance ENCR_Offsite).  I've talked with our
account rep and they state that they "anticipate" to raise the number
of keys that can be managed in NB.7.  They also anticipate it to
become a chargable item after the expansion but haven't worked out the
details yet.

It seems like functionality that still needs a good bit of work and
will probably get it in the future but is now more of a POC.  On the
plus side...its currently free and works fine in my experience, so its
great to try out if you already have the LTO4 drives.

On 2/8/09, Len Boyle  wrote:
> Good Day,
>
> We have a few IBM LTO-4 tape drives for which,  we would like to start using
> the build in encryption support with Netbackup 6.5.3
>
>
>
> Early reading seems to indicate that there are at least two key managers to
> choose from.
>
> The first is IBM's EKM java key manager.
>
> The second is Netbackup's KMS, which came out as part  Netbackup 6.5.2 .
>
> Does anyone have experience with these two products that they can share.
> Experiences  both good and bad.
>
> Thanks len
>
>
> ___
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Real time failure notification

[Travis Kelley]

I guess the question would be better stated as...I want real time
notification of when a configured number of retries have failed.  Its
always in the details:)

Thanks to everyone who has responded.  I'm looking into the options
that have been posted here.  Its great to have such a knowledgable
group of people to bounce questions off of so quickly!

On 2/5/09, Jeff Lightner  wrote:
> Actually it depends on how long your timeout is set.  If you've set
> things to timeout in 2 hours then 6 attempts would take 12 hours.  You
> might want to know long before that.  On the other hand, setting the
> timeout lower risks having the backup abort if it takes a long time
> normally (e.g. a database backup).
>
> The observation wasn't saying what you want won't work but rather that
> it is not truly "real time" which was what you'd put in your original
> post.  You pays your nickel and you takes your choice.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Travis
> Kelley
> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 8:37 AM
> To: Donaldson, Mark; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Real time failure notification
>
> Not really.  We have netbackup configured to retry a backup if it
> fails so there may be multiple "attempts" under the same jobid.  I
> don't want to get an alert if Netbackup is already running the backup
> again under another attempt.  I only want to get an alert after
> Netbackup has tried the configured number of "attempts" and is failing
> the jobid.  The way I see it is most of the time if something is
> really broken it won't take long to run through the 5 attempts, fail
> the job and alert, but if the box just got to busy and timed out or if
> the backup process was killed unintentionally I'd rather Netbackup
> handle retrying that on its own and not alert me.
>
> On 2/4/09, Donaldson, Mark  wrote:
>> Your "don't alert if retry was successful" automatically excludes the
>> idea of a real-time monitor.
>>
>> It's a bit like saying "Don't alert if you're going to succeed in the
>> future".
>>
>> We "solved" this by creating an after-the-fact monitor for our backups
> -
>> it searches the bpdbjobs output daily and parses that down to return
>> code, policy, client, & fileset.  If a fileset fails more than X days
> in
>> a row (without a success in there somewhere) then it's reported on as
> an
>> "endangered fileset".
>>
>> It'd been decently effective.
>>
>> -M
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
>> [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Travis
>> Kelley
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:36 AM
>> To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
>> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Real time failure notification
>>
>> Hi all.  I'm trying to find a solution to a monitoring problem we
>> have.  I would like to create a mechanism to alert when a backup fails
>> but to only send one alert if multiple streams from a backup fail.
>> For instance if c: and d: both fail for a particular box, I only want
>> 1 alert.  Also if a job fails twice but is successful on the third
>> attempt I don't want an alert at all.  I only want to be alerted once
>> when netbackup "gives up" on retrying a backup and fails the job.
>> I've looked at backup_exit_notify but haven't been able to find a good
>> way to implement this here.  Any ideas?
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my mobile device
>> ___
>> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
> ___
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
> Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
> --
> 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.
> --
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Real time failure notification

[Travis Kelley]

Not really.  We have netbackup configured to retry a backup if it
fails so there may be multiple "attempts" under the same jobid.  I
don't want to get an alert if Netbackup is already running the backup
again under another attempt.  I only want to get an alert after
Netbackup has tried the configured number of "attempts" and is failing
the jobid.  The way I see it is most of the time if something is
really broken it won't take long to run through the 5 attempts, fail
the job and alert, but if the box just got to busy and timed out or if
the backup process was killed unintentionally I'd rather Netbackup
handle retrying that on its own and not alert me.

On 2/4/09, Donaldson, Mark  wrote:
> Your "don't alert if retry was successful" automatically excludes the
> idea of a real-time monitor.
>
> It's a bit like saying "Don't alert if you're going to succeed in the
> future".
>
> We "solved" this by creating an after-the-fact monitor for our backups -
> it searches the bpdbjobs output daily and parses that down to return
> code, policy, client, & fileset.  If a fileset fails more than X days in
> a row (without a success in there somewhere) then it's reported on as an
> "endangered fileset".
>
> It'd been decently effective.
>
> -M
>
> -Original Message-
> From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Travis
> Kelley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:36 AM
> To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Real time failure notification
>
> Hi all.  I'm trying to find a solution to a monitoring problem we
> have.  I would like to create a mechanism to alert when a backup fails
> but to only send one alert if multiple streams from a backup fail.
> For instance if c: and d: both fail for a particular box, I only want
> 1 alert.  Also if a job fails twice but is successful on the third
> attempt I don't want an alert at all.  I only want to be alerted once
> when netbackup "gives up" on retrying a backup and fails the job.
> I've looked at backup_exit_notify but haven't been able to find a good
> way to implement this here.  Any ideas?
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
> ___
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Real time failure notification

[Travis Kelley]

Looks like parent_end_notify does what I need for multistreamed jobs.
It doesn't get called for jobs without multistreaming though.  I guess
having an environment with policies that have multistreaming on and
off makes this harder.

For the other questions that were asked...this is NB6.5.2 and its.a
solaris master, so no blat.exe.

On 2/4/09, judy_hinchcli...@administaff.com
 wrote:
> Try the parent_end_notify
>
> This only runs when the parent job ends.
>
> If any of the children die the parent gets that error.
> But if all the children are good the parent gets a 0.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Travis
> Kelley
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 9:36 AM
> To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Real time failure notification
>
> Hi all.  I'm trying to find a solution to a monitoring problem we
> have.  I would like to create a mechanism to alert when a backup fails
> but to only send one alert if multiple streams from a backup fail.
> For instance if c: and d: both fail for a particular box, I only want
> 1 alert.  Also if a job fails twice but is successful on the third
> attempt I don't want an alert at all.  I only want to be alerted once
> when netbackup "gives up" on retrying a backup and fails the job.
> I've looked at backup_exit_notify but haven't been able to find a good
> way to implement this here.  Any ideas?
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
> ___
> Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] Real time failure notification

[Travis Kelley]

Hi all.  I'm trying to find a solution to a monitoring problem we
have.  I would like to create a mechanism to alert when a backup fails
but to only send one alert if multiple streams from a backup fail.
For instance if c: and d: both fail for a particular box, I only want
1 alert.  Also if a job fails twice but is successful on the third
attempt I don't want an alert at all.  I only want to be alerted once
when netbackup "gives up" on retrying a backup and fails the job.
I've looked at backup_exit_notify but haven't been able to find a good
way to implement this here.  Any ideas?

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] NBU 6.5.1 restores miss files

[Travis Kelley]

You didn't mention how your performed the restore.  Bob already
suggested using the command line.  In case you are using the java admin
gui I'll point you over to a technote showing a problem we had where
files weren't restored.  I believe this only applies if you are using
the java admin gui.

http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/313460.htm


Mark Glazerman wrote:
> Len,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for your interest in our issue…
> 
>  
> 
> -  When you say that all your backup data resides on 2 Data
> Domain storage devices, I assume you mean just the backup media , tape
> or disk pool, and not the disk unit holding the restored data?
> 
>  
> 
> All backup data created by netbackup is sent straight to one of 2
> DataDomain restorers in our home data center.  That data is then
> replicated to identical DataDomain appliances in our DR hosting site in
> Philadelphia.  All of the images that we restore during either a DR
> exercise or a regular recovery of some kind come from the DataDomain
> appliances.  The DataDomain appliances are not used for primary storage
> or as target for any restored data.  All data was being restored to SAN
> attached disk on each host.
> 
>  
> 
> -  Did Netbackup report a failure to restore files? If so what
> reason was it reporting.
> 
>  
> 
> NetBackup did not report any errors during the restores.  Our signal
> that files / data was missing was that after restoring what we believed
> to be entire mountpoints, we would be short when compared to the amount
> of data in our production environments, sometimes by up to 10GB.
> 
>  
> 
> -  You talk about finding that missing files were found after
> the servers were turned over to your DBA’s. Do you mean missing files
> showed up without doing a restore? If so what file systems were you
> using? Windows 2003 ntfs, solaris zfs, Linux ext3? Local disk or remote?
> 
>  
> 
> I didn’t word this very well.  While it was obvious data was missing if
> we were GB’s short, some files or binaries needed by our DBA’s for RMAN
> recoveries etc.. were not seen to be missing until they were unable to
> do what they needed to.  The files didn’t show up on their own, their
> absence was identified after the data restores had apparently completed
> successfully.  This was almost exclusively an issue with data being
> restored to unix boxes into both VxFS and ZFS file systems on SAN
> attached disk
> 
>  
> 
> -  So are you talking about a failure of Netbackup or
> server/filesystems or both?
> 
>  
> 
> I don’t think we’re talking of a failure of the filesystems and
> NetBackup didn’t fail completely.  Once a file or directory was
> identified as missing after a restore, we would always drill down in
> Netbackup to make sure that the file was actually there to be restored. 
> They always were and were which means that NetBackup is working from a
> backup point of view.  We were then able to successfully restore these
> specific files or directories if we drilled down to the specific file or
> sub directory.  In that respect, NBU didn’t fail from a restore point of
> view either because we were able to restore everything we wanted to,
> just not always the first time around !! 
> 
>  
> 
> It is indeed an interesting problem and thankfully was one that we were
> able to work around.  I haven’t raised this question with veritas yet
> but plan to do so if some more testing in our home data center generates
> similar results.
> 
>  
> 
> *Mark Glazerman*
> 
> Desk: 314-889-8282
> 
> Cell: 618-520-3401
> 
> P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Len Boyle [mailto:len.bo...@sas.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, January 19, 2009 2:47 PM
> *To:* Mark Glazerman; Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> *Subject:* RE: NBU 6.5.1 restores miss files
> 
>  
> 
> Hello Mark,
> 
>  
> 
> I have a few questions about your report.
> 
>  
> 
> -  When you say that all your backup data resides on 2 Data
> Domain storage devices, I assume you mean just the backup media , tape
> or disk pool, and not the disk unit holding the restored data?
> 
> -  Did Netbackup report a failure to restore files? If so what
> reason was it reporting.
> 
> -  You talk about finding that missing files were found after
> the servers were turned over to your DBA’s. Do you mean missing files
> showed up without doing a restore? If so what file systems were you
> using? Windows 2003 ntfs, solaris zfs, Linux ext3? Local disk or remote?
> 
> -  So are you talking about a failure of Netbackup or
> server/filesystems or both?
> 
>  
> 
> A very interesting problem.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks len
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] *On Behalf Of *Mark
> Glazerman
> *Sent:* Monday, January 19, 2009 3:03 PM
> *To:* Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> *Subject:* [Veritas-bu] NBU 6.5.1 restores miss files
> 
>  
> 
> I’ve just got

[Veritas-bu] Upgrading solaris and NB at the same time

[Travis Kelley]

We have an old solaris 2.7 master/media that we would like to retire.
I would like to copy everything from /usr/openv onto a solaris 10
server and then go through the upgrade process (4.5 -> 5.x -> 6.x).
Does anyone know if this will work?  Will I be able to upgrade the NB
install after copying it onto the sol 10 machine?

-- 
Sent from my mobile device
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Encrypting offsite tapes

[Travis Kelley]

Don't forget hardware based encryption using LTO-4 tape drives.
Netbackup 6.5.2 has key management functionality built in.  To activate
the hardware encryption on LTO4 using NB6.5.2 after you have created
keys you just write backups to a pool prefixed with ENCR_* for instance
ENCR_Offsite.  Using this you could decide based on which volume pool
data was written whether or not it would be encrypted.  Your normal
backups could be written to a normal pool and then when vault did the
duplication those images could be written to a hardware encrypted pool.

The same cost caveat applies here if you don't already have LTO4 as in
Ed's #3:)

Ed Wilts wrote:
> You have 3 separate options:
> 
> 1.  Client-based encryption.  Free with 6.5 (and you may be able to get
> free licenses for 6.0 if you're under maintenance).  Adds a load to each
> and every client.  From what I've heard, it's not pretty.
> 
> 2.  Media-server based encryption.  Puts the load on the media servers
> instead.
> 
> 3.  Encryption appliance.  Not cheap, but they encrypt at wire speed
> while writing to the tape drives.   Decru, now owned by NetApp, is the
> current market leader.  Brocade is also now partnering with NetApp to
> build the next generation - basically a Decru encryption appliance built
> into a 32-port Brocade switch.  Not even close to cheap :-)
> 
> We chose option 3 and have Decru appliances in front of all our tape
> drives.  Everything that's written to tape is automatically encrypted -
> we don't need to think about it.  NetBackup doesn't even know the data
> is encrypted and doesn't care.
> 
> http://www.netapp.com/us/products/storage-security-systems/
> 
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Rongsheng Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> 
> We duplicate backup images from disks/tapes to tapes weekly using
> NetBackup vault and send the tapes offsite. We have a new requirement
> for encrypting all the tapes going offsite. I understand that
> NetBackup can do the encryption while the backup is being done. My
> question is: is it possible to encrypt the images during the vault
> process (or the duplication process of the vault)? How do you
> implement the encryption in your backup environments?
> 
> Our environment: NetBackup Enterprise 6.0MP4 on Solaris 10
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Rongsheng
> 
> 
> .../Ed
> 
> Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE
> [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] Command to Produce client and version

[Travis Kelley]

Here's a little snippit of code we use to grab client versions.  You can
wrap this in whatever you want.  We have it outputting to an HTML page
that we can quickly reference to see all our client versions.

/usr/openv/netbackup/bin/admincmd/bptestbpcd -host $CLIENT -verbose >
/tmp/testbpcdoutput

VERSION=`grep "^VERSION" /tmp/testbpcdoutput | grep VERSION | awk
'{print $3}' | cut -c4-10`
case $VERSION in
652)
VERSION=6.5.2
;;
650)
VERSION=6.5
;;
6000404)
VERSION=6.0mp4
;;
510)
VERSION="5.1"
;;
450)
VERSION=4.5
;;
*)
VERSION="unknown "$VERSION
;;
esac


Jackson, Todd wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> Does anyone know which command and flags to use to produce a list
> Of clients and the version of netbackup they are running from the
> command line?
> 
> I want to produce something similar to Host Properties > Clients >
> Properties
> With less fields.
> 
> Using netbackup 6.0
> Windows Master
> 
> Thanks
> Todd
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Tape drives in linux iostat

[Travis Kelley]

http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/FAQ_43_9854.shtm

This link should at least get you pointed in the right direction.  It 
works great.

A Darren Dunham wrote:
> Once upon a time, I think someone posted or emailed me information about
> modifying linux iostat so that tape drive throughput is visible.  I've
> searched the archives (both the list and my email), and I can't find it.
> 
> I'm currently running RH 3 as the master.  If someone has information
> about this, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks!
> --
> Darren
> ___
> 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] Lto-4 tape encryption portability

[Travis Kelley]

I realize that per the specs this should work, but just wondering if
anyone has actually done it.  Has anyone written an encrypted tape
using for instance an IBM drive and restored the encrypted data using
an HP drive?  This is assuming you were using a compatible
keystore...for instance Netbackup key managememt on both drives?
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Shared Stroage Options (SSO) with Vitual Tape Library (VTL)

[Travis Kelley]

I'd have to ask why you would want to use SSO on a VTL?  Unless there
is an arbitrary licensing issue you should be able to create as many
drives as you need and assign the appropriate number of drives to each
media server.  It should work...but at least in our situation it would
be more expensive to purchase the SSO license for each drive than to
just create more drives.



On 8/6/08, spaldam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've heard that it's not a good idea to use SSO with VTL's.  I'm looking for
> specifics as to why, and what kinds of problems it can cause.  Any personal
> experiences with specifics would be helpful.  Thanks.
>
>
> We are using a Quantum DXi5500 (emulating ADIC i500 and dlt7000's per
> Quantum's recommendation) and SL500 for physical tapes to go off-site.  We
> have 3 Media servers and 2 SAN media servers, plus the Master that also acts
> as a media server.
>
> I had some problems with tape mounts on the DXi not getting satisfied when
> doing multiple reads, but since it has had a complete Firmware refresh and
> it seems to be working much better now.  I'm not sure if the issue was due
> to using SSO or not.
>
> +--
> |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central.
> |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +--
>
>
>
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] How to change a Media ID

[Travis Kelley]

I think you just need to change the barcode...not the mediaid.  You
can do something like "vmchange -barcode 01951 -m 001951" to associate
the "new" barcode with the old mediaid.  Media ids don't actually have
anything to do with the barcode.  It just so happens that netbackup
bases the media I'd off of the barcode for our sake.  Hope this helps.

Travis



On 7/22/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a very old DLT70 tape with the Media and Barcode ID "001951".
>
> Now i need a restore from this tape, but the netbackup ( NBU6.0MP4 )
> system will try to restore from the tape with MediaID "01951".
>
> What can i do to rename/change this MediaID from "001951" to "01951" ?
>
>
> Cortal Consors S.A. Zweigniederlassung Deutschland, Bahnhofstraße 55,
> D-90402 Nürnberg, HR Nürnberg B 20075, USt-IdNr. DE225900761
>
> Sitz der Cortal Consors S.A.: 1, boulevard Haussmann, F-75318 Paris cedex
> 09, Registergericht: R.C.S. Paris 327 787 909
> Président du Conseil d'Administration (Verwaltungsratsvorsitzender) und
> Directeur Général (Generaldirektor) der CortalConsors S.A.: Olivier Le Grand
> Leitung der Zweigniederlassung Deutschland: Martin Daut (CEO Deutschland),
> Olivier Le Grand, Richard Döppmann, Uwe Trittin

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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Disc Staging Setup

[Travis Kelley]

We recently did this same thing.  Its obviously easiest if you can get
everything staged off first...but if not you do need to make sure the
path to the image doesn't change.  Links work well for this if you
need to change the mountpoint though.  I can confirm that NB doesn't
need to be shutdown also...as long as you're not writing to them
you're fine.



On 6/12/08, Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As long as the path to the image files doesn't change you will be fine.
> It might be easier just to expire all the images (after they have been
> written to tape) which will clear the disks allowing you to easily
> reconfigure the storage groups.
>
> -Jonathan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Crowey
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:36 AM
> To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Disc Staging Setup
>
>
> Gidday, I'm currently using 3 x 1TB LUNs for disc storage for our
> NetBackup (6.0MP4 on Red Hat 4.0) environment, and I want to change it
> to 2 x 2TB LUNs.
>
> Can I just shut NetBackup down, mount new LUNs, cp or mv files from old
> LUNs (obviously I'm going to have to cp 2 of the old LUNs onto one of
> the new LUNs - or can I split it?) to the new LUNs, umount old LUNs and
> reconfigure NetBackup to point to the new 2 LUNs instead of old 3?
>
> Or is it more complicated than that?
>
> +--
> |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] disk storage unit path changes

[Travis Kelley]

Can you just create.a link or shortcut from the old location pointing
to the new?  We did this with a solaris server recently.



On 5/29/08, UlrichJU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> We are testing an exagrid currently and we originally had the backup jobs
> pointing to a storage unit with \\exagridservername\sharename as the path.
> Then we decided to VLAN it to try and get better performance.   So the path
> in the storage unit changed to \\ip address\sharename.   The problem is now
> when I try to do a restore from backups with the old \\servername\sharename
> path, it fails because it can't see it.   Is there a way to tell netbackup
> that the path to the backup files has changed?   Almost like an alternate
> client restore, but it is the path to the files on disk that has changed,
> not the servername.
>
> +--
> |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] What's the best way to update media location

[Travis Kelley]

If you just delete the robot under devices, all of the media will be
automatically moved to an ejected state.  I recently found this out be
accident.



On 5/22/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> All,
> Today I had an L700 fully loaded with 618 pieces of media go south
> on me. Because this was a tertiary library for us, plus the fact we backup
> 99% direct to disk, our management decided to asset dispose of the entire
> library. What's the best way for me to gracefully back this thing out of
> NBU and update all 618 pieces of media in the NBU catalog as being ejected
> and located in; for example; storage?
>
>
>
> Own the landmark series When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions on DVD!  Find
> more great gifts by shopping online at http://discoverystore.com
>
> This e-mail, and any attachment, is intended only for the person or entity
> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, re-transmission, copying, dissemination or other use
> of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient
> is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and
> delete the material from any computer. The contents of this message may
> contain personal views which are not the views of Discovery Communications,
> LLC.
>
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] Multiplexing on VTL's

[Travis Kelley]

We recently purchased a VTL to backup some short retention backups to.
 The backups will expire on the VTL and will not be duplicated to tape
or anywhere else for that matter.  We also have capacity licensing so
we can create as many virtual tape drives as necessary.  I don't
believe multiplexing is necessary in a situation like this and that we
would be better off configuring enough tape drives to handle the
number of streams we need and turn multiplexing off.  Does anyone know
of any reason this logic would be flawed...and if not is there any
documentation out there to support that multiplexing is not a good
idea when using VTL's?
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Robotic control host...master/media

[Travis Kelley]

The reason I say a second HBA is that we will have 2 seperate fabrics.
 One will have all of the tape drives and robotic control and the
other is our disk fabric.



On 4/9/08, Martin, Jonathan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We've got the robot on the master here with two drives and no issues.  I
> doubt the robot is going to do very much data transfer / interfere with
> whatever disk activity you've got going on.  If you are using 4Gb HBAs I
> don't see any reason to install a 2nd HBA just for the robot.
> Alternately the media servers can run the robot as well, we were
> configured like that before I upgraded to NBU 6.0.
>
> -Jonathan
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis
> Kelley
> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:06 PM
> To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Robotic control host...master/media
>
> We're implementing a san for our tape drives and I was just wondering
> where most of you guys have robotic control?  We currently use one of
> the media servers, but once we have the SAN configured I understand it
> can also be on the master.  I hesitatae to put it there because our
> master is attached to a different (disk) SAN for the catalog disks, so
> if I move robotic control to the master I have to add another HBA and
> burn another port on the switch.  Anyone have any compelling reasons to
> move it to the master?
> ___
> 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] Robotic control host...master/media

[Travis Kelley]

We're implementing a san for our tape drives and I was just wondering
where most of you guys have robotic control?  We currently use one of
the media servers, but once we have the SAN configured I understand it
can also be on the master.  I hesitatae to put it there because our
master is attached to a different (disk) SAN for the catalog disks, so
if I move robotic control to the master I have to add another HBA and
burn another port on the switch.  Anyone have any compelling reasons
to move it to the master?
___
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] Media Server with multiple NICS]

[Travis Kelley]

Exactly.  We have SERVER entries for each of our media servers nics in
or clients bp.conf so then we just route traffic OUT whichever nic we
want on the media server and the client connects back and sends data
to that nic.

I'm not sure why you would want to have different storage units on the
same media server for its different virtual hostnames.  We write data
to the same tape stu no matter which nic it rides in on.  Maybe I'm
understanding some of the other posts on this thread wrong?

- Original message -
Travis, Very good point! I was neglecting the network rou...


On 3/12/08, Esson, Paul <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Travis,
>
> Very good point!  I was neglecting the network routing aspect.  So if I
> create multiple SERVER=   entries for my Media Servers with the
> appropriate hostnames (resolving back to the correct IP addresses) and
> put these lines in the relevant bp.conf files on the clients then the
> routing should take care of the rest?
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Esson
> -Original Message-
> From: Travis Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 04 March 2008 16:49
> To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Media Server with multiple NICS]
>
> You should be able to achieve this without anu configuration changes
> to NB itself.  We use multiple nics and you just have to make sure the
> routing is correct.  When bpcd on the media server connects to the
> client the client will then connect back to that same ip (assuming
> that ip is allowed in the bp.conf on the client). So make sure you
> route traffic out the proper interface and the client will send data
> back through that interface.   You do not need multiple storage units.
>  The storage unit is not tied to the interface the data came in on.
> Hope this helps.
>
> Travis
> - Original message -
> Yes, appears so, I'd like to know what you find. Regards Carl ...
>
>
>
> On 3/4/08, Travis Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
>

-- 
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

Re: [Veritas-bu] Media Server with multiple NICS]

[Travis Kelley]

You should be able to achieve this without anu configuration changes
to NB itself.  We use multiple nics and you just have to make sure the
routing is correct.  When bpcd on the media server connects to the
client the client will then connect back to that same ip (assuming
that ip is allowed in the bp.conf on the client). So make sure you
route traffic out the proper interface and the client will send data
back through that interface.   You do not need multiple storage units.
 The storage unit is not tied to the interface the data came in on.
Hope this helps.

Travis
- Original message -
Yes, appears so, I'd like to know what you find. Regards Carl ...



On 3/4/08, Travis Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>

-- 
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