Hi I am new to setting media server like this one. Does any body has steps to follow ? I alos heard TCP/IP trunking , what is these for better performance ? Any catch to worry for long run ?
Appreciate your help. THX -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:52 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 31, Issue 14 Send Veritas-bu mailing list submissions to veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Veritas-bu digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade (Randy Samora) 2. Re: Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade (Haskins, Steve) 3. Re: Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade (Randy Samora) 4. Restore problems (BeDour, Wayne) 5. Re: Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups (Stefaan Margot) 6. Restore problems (Jim H) 7. Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups (SimonD) 8. Re: Restore problems (BeDour, Wayne) 9. Re: Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups (Stefaan Margot) 10. Error 800 (Baumann, Kevin) 11. What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (MPish44) 12. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (Ed Wilts) 13. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 14. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (Haskins, Steve) 15. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (Ed Wilts) 16. What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (MPish44) 17. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 18. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (Donaldson, Mark) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:16:16 -0600 From: "Randy Samora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade To: <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" 12 Media Servers out of 13 went great. The one problematic server will not start the Volume Manager Service. The first error told me that my license eval had expired but it's the same license across the board. Is there some bug that I missed? I'm going to open a call with Symantec but this is usually quicker. Thanks, Randy ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:21:45 -0700 From: "Haskins, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade To: "Randy Samora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Randy, I had a similar issue and ran the install again with repair option to correct it. Regards. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Samora Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:16 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade 12 Media Servers out of 13 went great. The one problematic server will not start the Volume Manager Service. The first error told me that my license eval had expired but it's the same license across the board. Is there some bug that I missed? I'm going to open a call with Symantec but this is usually quicker. Thanks, Randy _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:30:28 -0600 From: "Randy Samora" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade To: "Haskins, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" I thought I had tried that earlier but just kicked it off again and no luck. Although I am getting a different error now. -----Original Message----- From: Haskins, Steve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:22: VIRUS ALERT! To: Randy Samora; VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade Randy, I had a similar issue and ran the install again with repair option to correct it. Regards. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Randy Samora Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:16 AM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade 12 Media Servers out of 13 went great. The one problematic server will not start the Volume Manager Service. The first error told me that my license eval had expired but it's the same license across the board. Is there some bug that I missed? I'm going to open a call with Symantec but this is usually quicker. Thanks, Randy _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:56:06 -0500 From: "BeDour, Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Restore problems To: <veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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. One NBU 6.5.2 SSO media server running on windows. We are splitting some bcv's from one windows server (usmidea-esrv01) and mounting them up on the SSO windows media server (usmidea-esrv02) to do the backups. I am now trying a restore back to the original server (usmidea-esrv01) and it is hanging and giving the following: 11/06/2008 12:09:30 - begin Restore 11/06/2008 12:09:36 - number of images required: 2 11/06/2008 12:09:36 - media needed: 001576 11/06/2008 12:10:11 - restoring from image usmidea-esrv02_1225908000 11/06/2008 12:09:48 - Error bpbrm (pid=7668) bpcd on usmidea-esrv01 exited with status 59: access to the client was not allowed 11/06/2008 12:09:52 - Error bpbrm (pid=5104) bpcd on usmidea-esrv01 exited with status 59: access to the client was not allowed 11/06/2008 12:09:53 - connecting 11/06/2008 12:09:54 - Error bpbrm (pid=5104) bpcd on usmidea-esrv01 exited with status 59: access to the client was not allowed 11/06/2008 12:09:55 - Error bpbrm (pid=5104) cannot put rename file on usmidea-esrv01 11/06/2008 12:10:39 - requesting resource 001576 11/06/2008 12:10:40 - Waiting for scan drive stop HP.ULTRIUM1-SCSI.006, Media server: usmidea-esrv02 11/06/2008 12:10:42 - granted resource 001576 11/06/2008 12:10:42 - granted resource HP.ULTRIUM1-SCSI.006 11/06/2008 13:12:12 - Warning bprd (pid=19382) Restore must be resumed prior to first image expiration on Sat Dec 6 13:00:00 2008 11/06/2008 13:12:12 - end Restore; elapsed time 1:02:42 cannot connect on socket (25) The error 59 says that "The master or the media server tries to access the client, but the client does not recognize the server as a valid server". When I check in the Client window in the NBU gui, both windows servers are showing as connected. I have added the hostnames and ip addresses to the Windows host files on both servers and the host file on our Unix master server. Windows isn't my normal environment and I'm sure I've missed something in the config but haven't found it yet. Anyone out there have any ideas what I missed? 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/ 61b4a05f/attachment-0001.htm ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 20:42:08 +0100 From: "Stefaan Margot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups To: <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Does anybody has a document describing how to backup MOSS2007 with Netbackup 6.5.2? We keep getting error 200 "No backups scheduled to run" Any thoughts? Thanks Best regards, Stefaan. -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens SimonD Verzonden: donderdag 6 november 2008 17:07 Aan: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Onderwerp: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups Just to let you know, today Symantec released a technote on document level backups/restores in 6.5.3. Hopefully it's useful to someone. I will be trying it as soon as I have my hands on 6.5.3. http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/305549.htm +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:48:40 -0500 From: Jim H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Restore problems To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I see that you have looked at the GUI, but I do not understand what you meant by connected. If you go to the Host Properties/Clients on the GUI and then bring up your client usmidea-esrv01, Are the names of the master and media server being used for this backup and restore shown in the server list? +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:20:51 -0500 From: SimonD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you trying to do document level backups or just full backups? Document level backups/restores don't really work in 6.5.2 without EEB's. If you're wanting to do full backups, did you read the following technotes/docs? http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/307267.htm http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/302438.htm - Chapter 7 Documentation is a bit thin on the ground when it comes to MOSS2007. +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:20:28 -0500 From: "BeDour, Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Restore problems To: <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii That was it. I needed to add my SSO media server to the list. You and Scott Deiter pointed this out at the same time. Thanks again to both. Wayne BeDour Unix System Administrator PH: 313-593-9876 Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim H Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:49 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Restore problems I see that you have looked at the GUI, but I do not understand what you meant by connected. If you go to the Host Properties/Clients on the GUI and then bring up your client usmidea-esrv01, Are the names of the master and media server being used for this backup and restore shown in the server list? +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 ********************** ** 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. ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:33:22 +0100 From: "Stefaan Margot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups To: <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I didn't install the EEB's ... I'll have another try. Thanks Stefaan -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Namens SimonD Verzonden: donderdag 6 november 2008 21:21 Aan: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Onderwerp: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups Are you trying to do document level backups or just full backups? Document level backups/restores don't really work in 6.5.2 without EEB's. If you're wanting to do full backups, did you read the following technotes/docs? http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/307267.htm http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/302438.htm - Chapter 7 Documentation is a bit thin on the ground when it comes to MOSS2007. +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:37:51 -0500 From: "Baumann, Kevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Error 800 To: <veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" All, I have a falcon attached to my media server and I want to use it for disk storage. After configuring it and trying to run a backup to that storage unit, I am getting an error 800. "Error nbjm NBU status: 800, EMM status: Disk volume is down resource request failed (800)" Has anyone seen this? Running Netbackup 6.5, master server is Solaris 10, media server SuSE 10. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/ 14f29aad/attachment.html ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:58:00 -0500 From: MPish44 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In our organization we have a hole in the process between our unix and backup teams. We use includes vs. excludes for our misc. filesystem type backups. The Unix team rarely tells us when they add a new filesystem on a server. At current we have left it at a "If you don't tell us we don't know about it" but that is neither proactive nor productive. One of the members of our backup team that was formerly a member of the storage team has a script in place that sends him an email whenever a filesystem is added to a Unix server. His suggestion is that we take the initiative and add these filesystems to the backups whenever a new one comes in. My thought is while that is great perhaps its time to move to an "excludes" type of system, granted its a manual effort across hundreds of Unix servers and we will probably have to manage the excludes in many the same ways... Thoughts? Am I making sense? +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:45:21 -0600 From: "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, MPish44 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > My thought is while that is great perhaps its time to move to an "excludes" > type of system, granted its a manual effort across hundreds of Unix > servers and we will probably have to manage the excludes in many the same ways... By default, a file system usually needs to be backed up. You may have bad backups if it happens to contain something like an Oracle database, and you won't have an application-consistent backup, but at least you'll have something. It definitely gets harder with active/passive clusters since NetBackup doesn't really support them very well, but something is better than nothing. When your admins tell you how the file system really needs to be handled, you can adjust your backup policies to do the right thing. By if they forget to tell you anything at all, at worst case you'll have a generic file system backup. We tend to do most of our backups with a generic all_local_drives type of policy coupled with some exclude for things like database volumes, and then use application-specific policies to cover them. Simple is always good. The less you have to muck with it, the more likely you are to be successful. .../Ed Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/ a6228d48/attachment.htm ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:46:04 -0600 From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? To: <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ff.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I started with excludes from the beginning. If I got "yellow men" return 1's I would look at why. I now have a standard exclude for all aix severs. You can apply that to more then one server at a time in the gui or use a script. If I still got return 1's I would look into those, and add the extra excludes like live database dirs. This is so much safer for your backups. I do the same thing for my windows servers. So now when I add a new server I apply the "standard" exclude via the gui, and work on any others that might need to be excluded. Usually after two days the server is all set and I don't have to worry about it until I add the next server. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MPish44 Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:58 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? In our organization we have a hole in the process between our unix and backup teams. We use includes vs. excludes for our misc. filesystem type backups. The Unix team rarely tells us when they add a new filesystem on a server. At current we have left it at a "If you don't tell us we don't know about it" but that is neither proactive nor productive. One of the members of our backup team that was formerly a member of the storage team has a script in place that sends him an email whenever a filesystem is added to a Unix server. His suggestion is that we take the initiative and add these filesystems to the backups whenever a new one comes in. My thought is while that is great perhaps its time to move to an "excludes" type of system, granted its a manual effort across hundreds of Unix servers and we will probably have to manage the excludes in many the same ways... Thoughts? Am I making sense? +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:06:40 -0700 From: "Haskins, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? To: "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I concur with Ed. By default I don't exclude anything as I don't control the applications and changes made to them and have found that covering my back is most important. The issue does arise, as Ed mentioned, when they add new drives in a cluster but I think that the new 6.5 client addresses that issue with a Netbackup cluster resource. Regards. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Wilts Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:45 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, MPish44 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My thought is while that is great perhaps its time to move to an "excludes" type of system, granted its a manual effort across hundreds of Unix servers and we will probably have to manage the excludes in many the same ways... By default, a file system usually needs to be backed up. You may have bad backups if it happens to contain something like an Oracle database, and you won't have an application-consistent backup, but at least you'll have something. It definitely gets harder with active/passive clusters since NetBackup doesn't really support them very well, but something is better than nothing. When your admins tell you how the file system really needs to be handled, you can adjust your backup policies to do the right thing. By if they forget to tell you anything at all, at worst case you'll have a generic file system backup. We tend to do most of our backups with a generic all_local_drives type of policy coupled with some exclude for things like database volumes, and then use application-specific policies to cover them. Simple is always good. The less you have to muck with it, the more likely you are to be successful. .../Ed Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/ fcfefa0e/attachment.html ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:19:34 -0600 From: "Ed Wilts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? To: "Haskins, Steve" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Haskins, Steve < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I concur with Ed. By default I don't exclude anything as I don't > control the applications and changes made to them and have found that > covering my back is most important. The issue does arise, as Ed > mentioned, when they add new drives in a cluster but I think that the > new 6.5 client addresses that issue with a Netbackup cluster resource. > I haven't heard anything about this cluster resource in the 6.5 client. Do you have any details? Somebody asked about cluster support during the Wizards session at the NetBackup Customer Forum here a couple of weeks ago and I'm pretty sure I remember the answer being something like "we just finished or are just finishing coding the solution". That's quite a bit different from shipping in 6.5 Thanks, .../Ed Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/ 8ebf4578/attachment.htm ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:27:54 -0500 From: MPish44 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Good thoughts here... thank you! One other question. What about NFS mounts? we have had to explicitly list those in the policy else we just backup a place holder filesystem "folder" with no data in it. Is it better to just have the backup selections for a Unix F/S backup as "/" and select Follow NFS and cross mount points or am I asking for trouble? +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |This was sent by [EMAIL PROTECTED] via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to [EMAIL PROTECTED] +---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:45:26 -0600 From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? To: <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ff.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I depends on if the data is backed up at it source. /opt from server1 mounted to /mnt on server2 I backup both servers. Then I have no reason to backup /mnt as I am getting the same data I get from /opt on server1. As I backup the source server I don't backup NFS or CIFS mounts. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MPish44 Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:28 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? Good thoughts here... thank you! One other question. What about NFS mounts? we have had to explicitly list those in the policy else we just backup a place holder filesystem "folder" with no data in it. Is it better to just have the backup selections for a Unix F/S backup as "/" and select Follow NFS and cross mount points or am I asking for trouble? +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:47:56 -0700 From: "Donaldson, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? To: <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED] exp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" The majority of our NFS mounts are not backed up on the server that's mounting them. We have "cross mountpoints" checked but "follow nfs" unchecked. We mount all NFS servers to a central machine and back it up there. We consider this more managable than trying to decide on what server a multiply-shared nfs mount will get backed up and where it should be excluded. For example, a common filesystem for us is used to distribute software across nearly a hundred servers. To backup it up 100 times would be insane. We really need to consider changing from a central NFS backup server to using the NDMP method of backups but haven't implemented yet. -M -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of MPish44 Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 3:28 PM To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? Good thoughts here... thank you! One other question. What about NFS mounts? we have had to explicitly list those in the policy else we just backup a place holder filesystem "folder" with no data in it. Is it better to just have the backup selections for a Unix F/S backup as "/" and select Follow NFS and cross mount points or am I asking for trouble? +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |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 End of Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 31, Issue 14 ****************************************** _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
