Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Sponsler, Michael < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See...that's the thing. Symantec is not straight forward with the proper > Master Server hardware recommendations. It's side stepped answers and vague > responses. I guess the fact is, they don't really know what to recommend > with your Netbackup domain reaches a certain size, and load. > This isn't Symantec's fault and they can't help but be vague because every site is different. And they can provide recommendations for sizing, but that's not the support tech's job - they're break/fix, not performance analysis (or master server cross-platform migration!). You may need to engage a professional consultant or Symantec's Professional Services for a detailed analysis. The job isn't simple, and the performance and tuning guide helps but isn't the complete answer.There are way, way too many permutations on what customers do that it's impossible to spec out what you need without doing a deep dive into your requirements and you've tried to meet those requirements. What Symantec *can* help with is whether what you're seeing is expected behavior or not. Beyond that, it's up to you or the people you hire to fix the problem. We didn't have the same issues under Netbackup 6.0 MP4. But at the same > time, we've ran Netbackup 6.0 MP5 for some time before we actually saw > serious system performance issues. > So this suggests that 6.0MP5 is not the cause. Something else changed, and Symantec can't tell what that was. You might know, but probably not. Many times it's what is happening on the clients that hurt you and of course the user community never admits to anything. A lot of processes by itself isn't a problem. It's what they're doing that's the problem... Many of those could be idle. .../Ed > -- > *From:* Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:43 PM > *To:* Jeff Lightner > *Cc:* Tharp, Trey; Sponsler, Michael; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > > *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 > > On 4/29/08, Jeff Lightner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Uh oh - you've dared to say something negative about Aptare - that > > simply is NOT done in this forum. :-) > > > It certainly is. If there's something we don't like about them, we should > be open to discussing it here (or on their own forums, although this is more > independent). > > Let's just say they're not on my favorite vendor list with their 6.5 > upgrade... And yeah, I know they're listening/reading but I'm not telling > them anything they don't already know. > > As for StorageConsole creating load on the master, of course that's going > to be true. You can't do the work any other way. > > Getting back to the original poster, a v440 with 16GB of RAM managing 60 > media/SAN media servers sounds like it's way underpowered to me. I believe > this server was released over 5 years ago... You'd probably be able to roll > in a T2000 with way more power and pay for it on the first year maintenance > costs alone. > >.../Ed > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tharp, > > Trey > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:49 PM > > To: Sponsler, Michael; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 > > > > The bpdbm parent process spawns a child for just about everything it > > does. So, if you have script or reporting tools that are running > > bpimagelist, bpmedialist, bpmedia, bpexpdate, etc. it will create child > > bpdbm processes for all of those. > > > > Aptare is infamous for creating lots of these and driving load up on a > > master server. > > > > -Trey > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Sponsler, Michael > > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:05 AM > > To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > > Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 > > > > Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server. > > > > My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed this > > behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running, but > > also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in netbackup/logs/bpdbm > > are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log file. I'm seeing such > > inforation in there as: > > > > image_b
Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
The smiley at the end of what I wrote would indicate it was meant as a
jest.
Having seen the virtues of Aptare extolled for years on this list it was
surprising for me to see anyone say something negative about it. We
don't use it so I don't have an opinion one way or the other.
From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:43 PM
To: Jeff Lightner
Cc: Tharp, Trey; Sponsler, Michael; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
On 4/29/08, Jeff Lightner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uh oh - you've dared to say something negative about Aptare -
that
simply is NOT done in this forum. :-)
It certainly is. If there's something we don't like about them, we
should be open to discussing it here (or on their own forums, although
this is more independent).
Let's just say they're not on my favorite vendor list with their 6.5
upgrade... And yeah, I know they're listening/reading but I'm not
telling them anything they don't already know.
As for StorageConsole creating load on the master, of course that's
going to be true. You can't do the work any other way.
Getting back to the original poster, a v440 with 16GB of RAM managing 60
media/SAN media servers sounds like it's way underpowered to me. I
believe this server was released over 5 years ago... You'd probably be
able to roll in a T2000 with way more power and pay for it on the first
year maintenance costs alone.
.../Ed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tharp,
Trey
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:49 PM
To: Sponsler, Michael; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
The bpdbm parent process spawns a child for just about
everything it
does. So, if you have script or reporting tools that are running
bpimagelist, bpmedialist, bpmedia, bpexpdate, etc. it will
create child
bpdbm processes for all of those.
Aptare is infamous for creating lots of these and driving load
up on a
master server.
-Trey
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Sponsler, Michael
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:05 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server.
My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed
this
behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running,
but
also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in
netbackup/logs/bpdbm
are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log file. I'm seeing
such
inforation in there as:
image_by_file: processing file
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle-B
ackup_1157475027_UBAK
expdate: no match for
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Oracl
e-Backup_1203468053_INCR
by bp.conf file has:
VERBOSE = 1
ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO
But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs
talking
about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years
since
we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so
why is
Netbackup processing those files?
On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs
of RAM,
4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup
domain...60
Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server
sees
constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks
up.
Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the
catalog,
and spawning so many bpdbm processes?
--
Mike Sponsler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I've helped you, please make a donation to my favorite charity at
http://firstgiving.com/edwilts
--
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.
--
_
Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
See...that's the thing. Symantec is not straight forward with the
proper Master Server hardware recommendations. It's side stepped
answers and vague responses. I guess the fact is, they don't really
know what to recommend with your Netbackup domain reaches a certain
size, and load.
We didn't have the same issues under Netbackup 6.0 MP4. But at the same
time, we've ran Netbackup 6.0 MP5 for some time before we actually saw
serious system performance issues. All four of the v440's 1.5Ghz CPU's
get pegged out with dozens of bpdbm processes running. Considering the
problems many people have talked about concerning bpdbm and 6.0 MP5, I'm
moving to Netbackup 6.5.1. Until I exhaust "software patches and
upgrades" I will be unable to get management to swing for a shiny new
server.
--
Mike Sponsler
From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 12:43 PM
To: Jeff Lightner
Cc: Tharp, Trey; Sponsler, Michael; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
On 4/29/08, Jeff Lightner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Uh oh - you've dared to say something negative about Aptare -
that
simply is NOT done in this forum. :-)
It certainly is. If there's something we don't like about them, we
should be open to discussing it here (or on their own forums, although
this is more independent).
Let's just say they're not on my favorite vendor list with their 6.5
upgrade... And yeah, I know they're listening/reading but I'm not
telling them anything they don't already know.
As for StorageConsole creating load on the master, of course that's
going to be true. You can't do the work any other way.
Getting back to the original poster, a v440 with 16GB of RAM managing 60
media/SAN media servers sounds like it's way underpowered to me. I
believe this server was released over 5 years ago... You'd probably be
able to roll in a T2000 with way more power and pay for it on the first
year maintenance costs alone.
.../Ed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Tharp,
Trey
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:49 PM
To: Sponsler, Michael; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
The bpdbm parent process spawns a child for just about
everything it
does. So, if you have script or reporting tools that are running
bpimagelist, bpmedialist, bpmedia, bpexpdate, etc. it will
create child
bpdbm processes for all of those.
Aptare is infamous for creating lots of these and driving load
up on a
master server.
-Trey
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Sponsler, Michael
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:05 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server.
My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed
this
behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running,
but
also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in
netbackup/logs/bpdbm
are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log file. I'm seeing
such
inforation in there as:
image_by_file: processing file
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle-B
ackup_1157475027_UBAK
expdate: no match for
/usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Oracl
e-Backup_1203468053_INCR
by bp.conf file has:
VERBOSE = 1
ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO
But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs
talking
about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years
since
we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so
why is
Netbackup processing those files?
On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs
of RAM,
4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup
domain...60
Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server
sees
constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks
up.
Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the
catalog,
and spawning so many bpdbm processes?
--
Mike Sponsler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If I've helped you, please make a donation to my favorite charity at
http:
Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
On 4/29/08, Jeff Lightner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Uh oh - you've dared to say something negative about Aptare - that > simply is NOT done in this forum. :-) It certainly is. If there's something we don't like about them, we should be open to discussing it here (or on their own forums, although this is more independent). Let's just say they're not on my favorite vendor list with their 6.5 upgrade... And yeah, I know they're listening/reading but I'm not telling them anything they don't already know. As for StorageConsole creating load on the master, of course that's going to be true. You can't do the work any other way. Getting back to the original poster, a v440 with 16GB of RAM managing 60 media/SAN media servers sounds like it's way underpowered to me. I believe this server was released over 5 years ago... You'd probably be able to roll in a T2000 with way more power and pay for it on the first year maintenance costs alone. .../Ed -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tharp, > Trey > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:49 PM > To: Sponsler, Michael; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 > > The bpdbm parent process spawns a child for just about everything it > does. So, if you have script or reporting tools that are running > bpimagelist, bpmedialist, bpmedia, bpexpdate, etc. it will create child > bpdbm processes for all of those. > > Aptare is infamous for creating lots of these and driving load up on a > master server. > > -Trey > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Sponsler, Michael > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:05 AM > To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 > > Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server. > > My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed this > behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running, but > also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in netbackup/logs/bpdbm > are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log file. I'm seeing such > inforation in there as: > > image_by_file: processing file > /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle-B > ackup_1157475027_UBAK > expdate: no match for > /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Oracl > e-Backup_1203468053_INCR > > by bp.conf file has: > VERBOSE = 1 > ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO > > But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs talking > about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years since > we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so why is > Netbackup processing those files? > > On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs of RAM, > 4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup domain...60 > Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server sees > constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks up. > Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the catalog, > and spawning so many bpdbm processes? > > -- > Mike Sponsler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If I've helped you, please make a donation to my favorite charity at http://firstgiving.com/edwilts ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
Uh oh - you've dared to say something negative about Aptare - that simply is NOT done in this forum. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tharp, Trey Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 11:49 PM To: Sponsler, Michael; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 The bpdbm parent process spawns a child for just about everything it does. So, if you have script or reporting tools that are running bpimagelist, bpmedialist, bpmedia, bpexpdate, etc. it will create child bpdbm processes for all of those. Aptare is infamous for creating lots of these and driving load up on a master server. -Trey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sponsler, Michael Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:05 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server. My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed this behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running, but also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in netbackup/logs/bpdbm are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log file. I'm seeing such inforation in there as: image_by_file: processing file /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle-B ackup_1157475027_UBAK expdate: no match for /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Oracl e-Backup_1203468053_INCR by bp.conf file has: VERBOSE = 1 ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs talking about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years since we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so why is Netbackup processing those files? On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs of RAM, 4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup domain...60 Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server sees constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks up. Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the catalog, and spawning so many bpdbm processes? -- Mike Sponsler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. -- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
The bpdbm parent process spawns a child for just about everything it does. So, if you have script or reporting tools that are running bpimagelist, bpmedialist, bpmedia, bpexpdate, etc. it will create child bpdbm processes for all of those. Aptare is infamous for creating lots of these and driving load up on a master server. -Trey -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sponsler, Michael Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:05 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5 Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server. My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed this behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running, but also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in netbackup/logs/bpdbm are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log file. I'm seeing such inforation in there as: image_by_file: processing file /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle-B ackup_1157475027_UBAK expdate: no match for /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Oracl e-Backup_1203468053_INCR by bp.conf file has: VERBOSE = 1 ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs talking about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years since we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so why is Netbackup processing those files? On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs of RAM, 4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup domain...60 Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server sees constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks up. Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the catalog, and spawning so many bpdbm processes? -- Mike Sponsler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
MP5 had a ton of bugs (not really sure how it made it out of the door), but I would wager that most of those have been resolved in MP6. That's what we are running now, and we haven't had many issues. Compared to some of the folks on here, our environment is probably mid-sized, as we back up about 750 TB a month. -- nick On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Koping Wang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does anybody has and bad experience with 6.0 MP6? I heard too may bad > things of MP5. I am on MP4 and thinking about upgrade to MP6. > Sun E450, Solaris 9, NBU6.0 MP4 > > Thanks > Koping > > > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:42:15 -0500 > From: "Nick Majeran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 24, Issue 61 > To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Message-ID: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > We just experienced a rash of these on MP5 -- basically, there were some > bugs in MP5 which caused intermittent image corruption. bpdbm will hang > during cleanup or database backups, and database backups failed with > status 41. Fun times, let me assure you! > > We ran through about 5 corrupted images in a week (on images that were > expired), and then upgraded to MP6. > > We we had to do was run an lsof, see exactly which files bpdbm is hung > up on, kill those bpdbm pids, and delete the files in question. > Everything was clean after that. > > hth, > > > Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server. > > > > My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed this > > behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running, but > > also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in > > netbackup/logs/bpdbm are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log > > file. I'm seeing such inforation in there as: > > > > image_by_file: processing file > > > > /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle > > -B > > ackup_1157475027_UBAK > > expdate: no match for > > > > /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Ora > > cl > > e-Backup_1203468053_INCR > > > > by bp.conf file has: > > VERBOSE = 1 > > ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO > > > > But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs > > talking about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years > > > since we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so > > > why is Netbackup processing those files? > > > > On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs of > > RAM, > > 4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup domain...60 > > > Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server sees > > constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks up. > > Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the catalog, > > > and spawning so many bpdbm processes? > > > > -- > > Mike Sponsler > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > > > End of Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 24, Issue 62 > ** > > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
Does anybody has and bad experience with 6.0 MP6? I heard too may bad things of MP5. I am on MP4 and thinking about upgrade to MP6. Sun E450, Solaris 9, NBU6.0 MP4 Thanks Koping Message: 1 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:42:15 -0500 From: "Nick Majeran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 24, Issue 61 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 We just experienced a rash of these on MP5 -- basically, there were some bugs in MP5 which caused intermittent image corruption. bpdbm will hang during cleanup or database backups, and database backups failed with status 41. Fun times, let me assure you! We ran through about 5 corrupted images in a week (on images that were expired), and then upgraded to MP6. We we had to do was run an lsof, see exactly which files bpdbm is hung up on, kill those bpdbm pids, and delete the files in question. Everything was clean after that. hth, > Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server. > > My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed this > behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running, but > also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in > netbackup/logs/bpdbm are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log > file. I'm seeing such inforation in there as: > > image_by_file: processing file > > /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle > -B > ackup_1157475027_UBAK > expdate: no match for > > /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Ora > cl > e-Backup_1203468053_INCR > > by bp.conf file has: > VERBOSE = 1 > ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO > > But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs > talking about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years > since we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so > why is Netbackup processing those files? > > On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs of > RAM, > 4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup domain...60 > Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server sees > constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks up. > Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the catalog, > and spawning so many bpdbm processes? > > -- > Mike Sponsler > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu End of Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 24, Issue 62 ** ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
[Veritas-bu] bpdbm acting wacky -- NB 6.0 MP5
Solaris 10, Netbackup 6.0 MP5 Master server. My bpdbm process is acting wacky (I think...I've never noticed this behavior before). I've actually got 14 bpdbm processes running, but also 38 active jobs currently. The logs for my in netbackup/logs/bpdbm are very large...around 2 gigs per day's log file. I'm seeing such inforation in there as: image_by_file: processing file /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//115700/-Oracle-B ackup_1157475027_UBAK expdate: no match for /usr/openv/netbackup/db/images//1203000/-Oracl e-Backup_1203468053_INCR by bp.conf file has: VERBOSE = 1 ENABLE_ROBUST_LOGGING = NO But the thing is, I've noticed some information in my bpdbm logs talking about Informix backups that we haven't done in almost 2 years since we've moved to Oracle. The backups are long since expired...so why is Netbackup processing those files? On my master server, I'm running Solaris 10 on a v440 w/ 16 gigs of RAM, 4 CPU's running @ 1593 Mhz. I do have a large netbackup domain...60 Media & SAN Media servers, ~30 clients...but my Master server sees constant 100% cpu utilization. The Server slows down, and locks up. Could this be related to bpdbm checking all the files in the catalog, and spawning so many bpdbm processes? -- Mike Sponsler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
