Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
My last email on this to try and clear my name a little yet still give advise to the original poster. I wrote something in a few words which then had people assuming what i was meaning. This is my fault for writing it like that and i should have expanded the point more, although it was only a question to people. Original quote : "I am surprised by the number of people using a single volume pool for data backups. What about mixed retentions on media?" People then took my understanding to mean either i thought you cannot have 1 volume pool and have different retentions or having one volume pool would mean you have backup images of different retentions on the same tape. Neither of these is what i was trying to say or is my understanding of netbackup. I simply was saying to the original poster, who was asking for advise on how to setup a system with what seemed to me limited netbackup knowledge, was having one volume pool in my opinion would be difficult to manage if you have the requirement for different retentions for certain backup images. The reason for this is either you need to mix retentions on media or you will have tapes with the same volume pool and different retentions in your jukebox and not know easily from a glance what tapes are what. Now i know people from reading this have a use for both of these features which i guess is why they are there in netbackup, but to the original poster and to keep things simple for administration and netbackup i think going down these 2 routes is not wise for a new starter. Some people have agreed and some people have got their own methods thats all great but think of the original poster. I went on to describe my basic setup i put on small to medium solutions as advise for the poster so they had very few pools which would relate to retention and it didn't mater on the policy. It also means you can quickly glance down the media in your jukebox and know what tapes are what, retention wise, or be it for logs or offsite. I know this is not for everyone and people have other ways of doing things but it is a simple solution letting netbackup handle the aspects of media allocation based on schedules and gives you good scope for restore and in my case automated scripts to alert people when to take tapes out and put them in based on retention. All backup solutions, again in my opinion, should be designed around the restore requirements. The original poster reading the thread if hes not fed up by now :) will beable to fully understand the mixed retentions on media and the aspects of using one volume pool, and having different schedules with different retention periods, thanks to everyone who responded. This is only a good thing. So to summarizei understand how netbackup works with retentions and volume pools and i wasnt saying any individual set up is bad i was simply saying i was surprised by the number of people using one tape pool for all data backups and questioned the retention aspects of doing this both administratively and tape usagely ( i had to put one unknown word in this reply hehe). Now can someone answer me what happens if you have a 2 clients in a policy which has 2 streams as follows :- NEW_STREAM /data /u01 /u02 NEW_STREAM /devices/something/[EMAIL PROTECTED],raw /devices/something/[EMAIL PROTECTED],raw /devices/something/[EMAIL PROTECTED],raw /devices/something/[EMAIL PROTECTED],raw both clients have the directories /data etc (the file system stuff) and only one client has the raw partitions vvisible. They are both in the same policy as i want them to write to the same tapes and have the same retention. I have an exclude_list. on the client without the raw partitions containing the raw partitions yet i get a backup exit status of 71 for this client which is none of files in file list exist. I know this is because the new_stream will create a new job for that client but why is the exclude list not being used or is it and its just no other files are in the list so it exits with 71? Cheers bob944 wrote: >> I think that my words have been taken out of context. I know you cant >> and shouldn't mix retentions on media which is why i find it hard that >> people use 1 media pool for all backups. From that i would assume they >> have the same retention for all backups. This in my opinion which is >> only my opinion is a bad idea. >> >> To give advise to the original thread i was saying that one >> volume pool >> for all backups is perhaps not the right way to do things and i was >> surprised by the number of people who seemed to adopt it. I >> asked about >> mixed retentions as people with 1 volume pool cannot ( safely ) then >> have a full backup with a different retention than say a >> cumulative backup. >> > > Dave, perhaps I'm dense, but I read the above the same as I read your > original statement: it seems you are saying that a 1-month-retention > full can wind up on the same tape as a 1-week-retention cumulative. > There's no "s
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Alex You may want to check and re-read (if you have not done so already) the Release Notes for NBU6 my friend Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Wilkinson, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 April 2006 07:57 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] 0n Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:55:55AM +1200, Mansell, Richard wrote: >End of Life Notification for Catalog > >1. The offline catalog backup feature will be removed in the next major >release of >NetBackup. Improved functionality is currently available to user with >the new onlineA >catalog backup. How did you recieve this notification ? -aW ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
0n Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 08:55:55AM +1200, Mansell, Richard wrote: >End of Life Notification for Catalog > >1. The offline catalog backup feature will be removed in the next major >release of >NetBackup. Improved functionality is currently available to user with >the new onlineA >catalog backup. How did you recieve this notification ? -aW ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Well put Wayne! Our setup is simple, easy to manage, plus (and a big thing), it sorts itself out! No real intervention required! Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Wayne T Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 16:28 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid! It's easy to over-manage NetBackup, because it lets you. I recommend that you keep things simple, and deviate from the simple when it's evident that you should. If the NetBackup pool contains all of your assigned tapes and the Scratch pool contains all of your available tapes, life is simple. How many tapes are in use? Count the number of tapes in NetBackup. How many tapes are available for backups? Count the number of tapes in Scratch. All free tapes are available for the next backup. Cleaning tapes, if any, will be in pool NONE. I use another pool for "suspect" tapes ... tapes that have had "an event" such as a read or write error. If on v6.0, you probably have pool for catalog backups. If you duplicate/vault tapes, you probably have another couple of pools (one for catalog backups; one for data) for your catalog and image copies. Why make more pools? One reason might be to insulate free tapes in a pool from others. For example, in my shop our Oracle Agent backups take precedence over file system backups. We don't want independent file system backups "filling" a tape pool, possibly delaying backups and causing our archive redo log spaces to fill. I'm sure there are other reasons for more pools, but in general, I recommend: KISS. :-) cheers, wayne Wilkinson, Alex wrote, in part, on 4/25/2006 8:46 PM: > What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? > > We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data > tapes. Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this > situation ? > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Richard Well bye bye offline catalog :-( Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Mansell, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 21:56 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Hi Simon I suspect you are right but another reason to move to hot catalog backups is in the 6.0 release notes:- End of Life Notification for Catalog 1. The offline catalog backup feature will be removed in the next major release of NetBackup. Improved functionality is currently available to user with the new online catalog backup. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2006 6:59 pm To: Mansell, Richard; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Richard Although recommended, Online Cat backups were originally designed for Enterprise Backup Environments where there is no "window" to perform an offline backup. In other words, it will work while normal backups are running at the same time. Also (I think I am write!), online catalog backups allow the use to span more tapes, where an offline uses 1. Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Mansell, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 06:06 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] FWIW, in NBU 6 hot catalogue backups are the recommended way to go and a pool called CatalogBackup gets created especially for that purpose. We therefore just use NetBackup for the normal data tapes and it is fed from a scratch pool. Since we use the vault option we also have a VaultCatalogue and a VaultData pool. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bob944 Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2006 4:49 pm To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; 'Wilkinson, Alex' Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations. This is the right one. :-) > What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? > > We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data > tapes. Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this > situation ? Yes to the first, no to the second. Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup. Everything else in "dsto-mlb". ** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz ** ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Kate An excellent pointed Email, and again exactly how my setup is configured (with a few more volume pools, but its manageable and works) Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Greenberg, Katherine A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 18:08 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] OK boys, (and girls, altho we seem to be generally keeping our mouths shut on this one!) to summarize... 1. Yes, you can have multiple retentions on a single piece of media. We have established this at least 4 times on this list. However, it is not recommended to do. (unless your life sucks like Jonathan's here) 2. Volume pool configuration is really up to the individual shop. PERSONALLY, I do not use the NetBackup pool for anything but catalogue tapes. If you opt for the 1 POOL configuration, your best bet would be to make an alternate pool, set your policies up to use it and then throw everything into it. 3. If you opt for Multiple Volume Pools, best practice is to utilize a SCRATCH POOL and let NetBackup divvy the tapes up accordingly. Post-4.5, if a tape starts in SCRATCH, it will be returned to SCRATCH once it's de-assigned. I, personally, use Volume pools based on the Environment which they back up (Corporate, Web, etc.). I also use volume pools for duplicated tapes. I support a 250 + TB environment and this works well for me. Breaking things out and micro-managing this application is really not necessary. As long as it's set up intelligently, it will self-manage, unless something in your environment breaks. ~Kate -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:56 PM To: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Sorry to call you on this one, but you CAN have multiple retentions on one tape. Under your Master Server Properties / MEDIA there is a "Allow Multiple Retentions Per Media" check box which I am forced to use. I've got 4 sites without robots that use Netbackup to write 2 week, 3 month and 1 year retention data to and without this I'd be up the creek! I'm not sure who shelled out the big bucks for Netbackup for a site with no robot, but that's another debate entirely! =P -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:40 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave > Markham > > Correct. Unless you have mix retentions on media set which i think > everyone has agreed is a bad idea. Agreed...but mixed retentions has nothing to do with multiple volume pools. You can have 10 different retentions and only 1 volume pool, and you will not get two different retentions written to the same media. A single volume pool does not equal mixed retention on one media. > > Your description below uses 4 tapes ( if one tape per backup is used ) > which are all associated to the same volume pool. But each tape has a different retention. Paul ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Same here (not convinced about mix retentions on tape) - hence why I separate pools for specific policies - plus its not turned on :-) Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Paul Keating [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 18:05 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] I didn't say you CAN'T. I said you don't have to...(and in my opinion, you shouldn't) You can have a single volume pool, and three groups of tapes within one pool, all with different retentions. In your case, if you write a 1 year retention to a tape, that tape is tied up for a yeareven though there's only a couple hundred megs on it with a yearly retention, and 60 gigs with a 2 week retention...that 2 week retention data is stuck on that tape, wasting space for a full year. If you turned off the "Allow Multiple Retentions Per Media" option, you would have a couple tapes for 1 year retained data, a bunch of tapes for 3 month retained data and a bunch of tapes with 2 week retained data...and all in the same volume pool, if you so choose. You would constantly have fresh scratch media available. You'd have a hard time convincing me why you need to mix retention on a single media. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) > Sent: April 26, 2006 12:56 PM > To: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > > > Sorry to call you on this one, but you CAN have multiple retentions on > one tape. Under your Master Server Properties / MEDIA there is a > "Allow Multiple Retentions Per Media" check box which I am forced to > use. I've > got 4 sites without robots that use Netbackup to write 2 week, 3 month > and 1 year retention data to and without this I'd be up the creek! > > I'm not sure who shelled out the big bucks for Netbackup for > a site with > no robot, but that's another debate entirely! =P > > -Jonathan This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
> I think that my words have been taken out of context. I know you cant > and shouldn't mix retentions on media which is why i find it hard that > people use 1 media pool for all backups. From that i would assume they > have the same retention for all backups. This in my opinion which is > only my opinion is a bad idea. > > To give advise to the original thread i was saying that one > volume pool > for all backups is perhaps not the right way to do things and i was > surprised by the number of people who seemed to adopt it. I > asked about > mixed retentions as people with 1 volume pool cannot ( safely ) then > have a full backup with a different retention than say a > cumulative backup. Dave, perhaps I'm dense, but I read the above the same as I read your original statement: it seems you are saying that a 1-month-retention full can wind up on the same tape as a 1-week-retention cumulative. There's no "safely" about it--that _does_ _not_ _happen_ unless you force it with use_multiple_retentions_per_media. Has nothing at all to do with volume pools. Please, what am I misunderstanding about what you are saying? > > What about them? NetBackup *never* puts different > retentions on a tape > > unless you force it to with the > MULTIPLE_RETENTIONS_PER_MEDIA directive > > (and there are very few situations where that's a good idea). And someone asked when that would ever be a good idea. Two that I've found are o small robots. Maybe it's worth having some full, out-of-the-robot tapes with mixed retentions sitting around until the longest/newest image on it expires versus having, say, eight partial tapes clogging up slots in the robot (say, MediaA and MediaB, each backing up clients with 1-week and 1-month retentions in two pools. Throw in mux/non-multiplexed, a few more pools, a few special retentions, another media server, and ... well, a 30-tape robot just won't cut it for that customer. If you allow multiple retentions, you free up precious slots. o moving day. A couple of clients are moving to another NetBackup domain, or maybe you're sending backups to a DR site. If you make, or dup, their dailies, weeklies and last monthly (w/different retentions), it's three tapes--or one if you put them all on one tape. In short, "multiple retentions per media" doesn't hurt a darned thing, ever. It just means that a tape of 1-week-retention dailies that has a 1-month-retention weekly on it at the end won't become available for a month, rather than a week. And _that_ is intrinsically no different than the "waste" of older images at the beginning of a single-retention tape being held hostage to the expiration time of the last image. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
> Awesome detailed reply Bob. Thank ! Much appreciated. You're most welcome. Let's see where I could have improved it: :-) > 1. You say tapes with errors will be moved to the "none" > pool. I was under the >impression they would be 'frozen' and left in their > orginating Volume Pool ? >Can you please clarify what you mean by this. Sure. What I meant by > >- Practically, you'll still have a None pool (cleaning tapes, tapes > >with errors you don't want used until you test or toss them). is that those are popular and well-grounded uses for the None pool--but you have to put tapes in there yourself; there isn't any automatic method and you have the error/freeze/leave part correct. "None" is a good place for tapes you don't want written to that exists upon installation. > 2. What is the "DataStore" Pool actually designed to be used for ? I should know this, but have forgotten. It was (is?) another Veritas product. Storage Migrator, maybe? > 3. You mention that cleaning tapes would go into the "None" > pool. I was origally > thinking of creating a "CLN" pool. Bad idea ? Nothing wrong with it, just that there's no need, since None handles keeping them and their *_CLN type visible just fine. See above. My experience has led me to trade heavily on NetBackup's strengths: let it handle everything it can (like separating images by retention), rely on its big-picture scope (like classes, what policies used to be called) to handle ten or a thousand systems with one set of parameters and free your brain for more important things, and be parsimonious with pools, classes, retentions, schedules, ... it's difficult to watch other users who just don't grasp that this isn't ArcServe. > Oh and another question: > > Why would I need a 'duplicates' and 'catalogue duplicates' pool ? For sending duplications of backups offsite, or if you want to use Vault as a model for a homegrown version of it. The old vault used, by default, Duplicates for the duplicated images and NBDB-Duplicates for the accompanying offsite catalog backups. Bob ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Just to clarify the situation NetBackup doesn't mix retention levels by default, not retention periods. We have two different retention levels both with a 10 day retention period, one is for weekly backups and one is for quarterly. The reason we do this is so that we can use the 'use mappings' option in the vault to remap the retention period for the weeklies to be 12 weeks and the retention period for the quarterlies to be infinite (mapping is done by retention level). Even though they both have a retention period of 10 days the backups go to different tapes in the same tape pool because the retention level is different. The same thing happens in the vault - we get a different tape for each retention level. Regards Richard ** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz ** ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Hi Alex If you add a cleaning tape in the Windows V6.0 command console it automatically gets put in to the 'none' group then the group gets greyed out so you can't change it. Not sure if you can change it using command line options but you don't appear to be able to change it anywhere in the gui. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilkinson, Alex Sent: Thursday, 27 April 2006 1:28 am To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] 3. You mention that cleaning tapes would go into the "None" pool. I was origally thinking of creating a "CLN" pool. Bad idea ? Cheers and thanks to everyone who is responding. Please keep your opinions and ideas flowing in. I am _very_ interested ! -aW ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu ** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz ** ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Hi Simon I suspect you are right but another reason to move to hot catalog backups is in the 6.0 release notes:- End of Life Notification for Catalog 1. The offline catalog backup feature will be removed in the next major release of NetBackup. Improved functionality is currently available to user with the new online catalog backup. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2006 6:59 pm To: Mansell, Richard; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Richard Although recommended, Online Cat backups were originally designed for Enterprise Backup Environments where there is no "window" to perform an offline backup. In other words, it will work while normal backups are running at the same time. Also (I think I am write!), online catalog backups allow the use to span more tapes, where an offline uses 1. Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Mansell, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 06:06 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] FWIW, in NBU 6 hot catalogue backups are the recommended way to go and a pool called CatalogBackup gets created especially for that purpose. We therefore just use NetBackup for the normal data tapes and it is fed from a scratch pool. Since we use the vault option we also have a VaultCatalogue and a VaultData pool. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bob944 Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2006 4:49 pm To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; 'Wilkinson, Alex' Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations. This is the right one. :-) > What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? > > We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data > tapes. > Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this > situation ? Yes to the first, no to the second. Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup. Everything else in "dsto-mlb". ** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz ** ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Why is it bad practice? I don't understand the big deal about not separating different retentions to different pools? If they all use the same pool, they are separated automatically, you just can't 'see' it. If it's just for visual peace of mind, then I understand. In a shop where we have multiple sites with multiple customers (450+) who each have at least one volume pool, it's becoming imperative to 'downsize' into much fewer pools, and we will let multiple retentions go to the same pool (not to be confused with mixing them on the same tape). -Rusty -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Markham Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 11:35 AM To: Paul Keating Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Correct. Unless you have mix retentions on media set which i think everyone has agreed is a bad idea. Your description below uses 4 tapes ( if one tape per backup is used ) which are all associated to the same volume pool. IMO this is bad practice. I do think it explains it well to the person who originally asked the question however which is nice. Paul Keating wrote: > Mistakenly hit ctrl+enter when I meant to ctrl+V > > Please read down... > > >> I don't believe your words were taken out of context, as even >> re-reading your follow-up, I'm interpretting your words the same way. >> >> I think you are misunderstanding what netbackup does...it DOES NOT >> mix retentions on a single media... >> >> If for instance you have one pool, named "netbackup" and you have 3 >> different policies, each with different retentions >> >> Ie. >> PolicyA -> FULL=4 weeks, INC=2 weeks -> pool=netbackup PolicyB -> >> FULL=8 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup PolicyB -> FULL=24 weeks, >> INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup >> >> You will ned up with something simlar to the following: >> >> MediaID PoolRetention >> 01 Netbackup 24 weeks >> 02 Netbackup 8 weeks >> 03 Netbackup 4 weeks >> 04 Netbackup 2 weeks >> > > You will NOT get a 2 week and a 4 week retention backup written to the > same media ID, regardless of whether or not they're written to the > same volume pool. > > Paul > > -- > -- > > == > == > > La version française suit le texte anglais. > > -- > -- > > This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and > the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any > distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it > contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you > received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system > and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. > > -- > -- > > Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou > confidentielle. > La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. > Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des > renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les > destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par > erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à > l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de > votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu. > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@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] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
OK boys, (and girls, altho we seem to be generally keeping our mouths shut on this one!) to summarize... 1. Yes, you can have multiple retentions on a single piece of media. We have established this at least 4 times on this list. However, it is not recommended to do. (unless your life sucks like Jonathan's here) 2. Volume pool configuration is really up to the individual shop. PERSONALLY, I do not use the NetBackup pool for anything but catalogue tapes. If you opt for the 1 POOL configuration, your best bet would be to make an alternate pool, set your policies up to use it and then throw everything into it. 3. If you opt for Multiple Volume Pools, best practice is to utilize a SCRATCH POOL and let NetBackup divvy the tapes up accordingly. Post-4.5, if a tape starts in SCRATCH, it will be returned to SCRATCH once it's de-assigned. I, personally, use Volume pools based on the Environment which they back up (Corporate, Web, etc.). I also use volume pools for duplicated tapes. I support a 250 + TB environment and this works well for me. Breaking things out and micro-managing this application is really not necessary. As long as it's set up intelligently, it will self-manage, unless something in your environment breaks. ~Kate -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:56 PM To: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Sorry to call you on this one, but you CAN have multiple retentions on one tape. Under your Master Server Properties / MEDIA there is a "Allow Multiple Retentions Per Media" check box which I am forced to use. I've got 4 sites without robots that use Netbackup to write 2 week, 3 month and 1 year retention data to and without this I'd be up the creek! I'm not sure who shelled out the big bucks for Netbackup for a site with no robot, but that's another debate entirely! =P -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:40 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave > Markham > > Correct. Unless you have mix retentions on media set which i think > everyone has agreed is a bad idea. Agreed...but mixed retentions has nothing to do with multiple volume pools. You can have 10 different retentions and only 1 volume pool, and you will not get two different retentions written to the same media. A single volume pool does not equal mixed retention on one media. > > Your description below uses 4 tapes ( if one tape per backup is used ) > which are all associated to the same volume pool. But each tape has a different retention. Paul ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu - This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail immediately. Thank you. Aetna ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
I didn't say you CAN'T. I said you don't have to...(and in my opinion, you shouldn't) You can have a single volume pool, and three groups of tapes within one pool, all with different retentions. In your case, if you write a 1 year retention to a tape, that tape is tied up for a yeareven though there's only a couple hundred megs on it with a yearly retention, and 60 gigs with a 2 week retention...that 2 week retention data is stuck on that tape, wasting space for a full year. If you turned off the "Allow Multiple Retentions Per Media" option, you would have a couple tapes for 1 year retained data, a bunch of tapes for 3 month retained data and a bunch of tapes with 2 week retained data...and all in the same volume pool, if you so choose. You would constantly have fresh scratch media available. You'd have a hard time convincing me why you need to mix retention on a single media. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Martin, Jonathan (Contractor) > Sent: April 26, 2006 12:56 PM > To: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > > > Sorry to call you on this one, but you CAN have multiple retentions on > one tape. Under your Master Server Properties / MEDIA there > is a "Allow > Multiple Retentions Per Media" check box which I am forced to > use. I've > got 4 sites without robots that use Netbackup to write 2 week, 3 month > and 1 year retention data to and without this I'd be up the creek! > > I'm not sure who shelled out the big bucks for Netbackup for > a site with > no robot, but that's another debate entirely! =P > > -Jonathan La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
Beating a Dead Horse - was- RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
P344ff VERITAS NetBackup(tm) 6.0 Media Manager System Administrator's
Guide for UNIX
P337ff VERITAS NetBackup(tm) 5.1 Media Manager System Administrator's
Guide for UNIX
And for those really behind the times.
P319ff VERITAS NetBackup(tm) DataCenter 4.5Media Manager System
Administrator's Guide for UNIX
## ## ## ##
# ## # ## ## ## ##
# # # # ## ## # ##
# # # # ## ## # ### ##
# # ## ## ## ## ##
## ## ##
Regards,
Patrick Whelan
NetBackup Specialist
Architect & Engineering
+44 20 7863 5243
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most! - Unknown
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Martin,
Jonathan (Contractor)
Sent: 26 April 2006 17:56
To: Paul Keating; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Sorry to call you on this one, but you CAN have multiple retentions on
one tape. Under your Master Server Properties / MEDIA there is a "Allow
Multiple Retentions Per Media" check box which I am forced to use. I've
got 4 sites without robots that use Netbackup to write 2 week, 3 month
and 1 year retention data to and without this I'd be up the creek!
I'm not sure who shelled out the big bucks for Netbackup for a site with
no robot, but that's another debate entirely! =P
-Jonathan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul
Keating
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:40 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave
> Markham
>
> Correct. Unless you have mix retentions on media set which i think
> everyone has agreed is a bad idea.
Agreed...but mixed retentions has nothing to do with multiple volume
pools.
You can have 10 different retentions and only 1 volume pool, and you
will not get two different retentions written to the same media.
A single volume pool does not equal mixed retention on one media.
>
> Your description below uses 4 tapes ( if one tape per backup is used )
> which are all associated to the same volume pool.
But each tape has a different retention.
Paul
___
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
*
The message is intended for the named addressee only and may not be disclosed
to or used by anyone else, nor may it be copied in any way.
The contents of this message and its attachments are confidential and may also
be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the named addressee and/or have
received this message in error, please advise us by e-mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies.
Internet communications are not secure and COLT does not accept responsibility
for this message, its contents nor responsibility for any viruses.
No contracts can be created or varied on behalf of COLT Telecommunications, its
subsidiaries or affiliates ("COLT") and any other party by email Communications
unless expressly agreed in writing with such other party.
Please note that incoming emails will be automatically scanned to eliminate
potential viruses and unsolicited promotional emails. For more information
refer to www.colt.net or contact us on +44(0)20 7390 3900.
___
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Sorry to call you on this one, but you CAN have multiple retentions on one tape. Under your Master Server Properties / MEDIA there is a "Allow Multiple Retentions Per Media" check box which I am forced to use. I've got 4 sites without robots that use Netbackup to write 2 week, 3 month and 1 year retention data to and without this I'd be up the creek! I'm not sure who shelled out the big bucks for Netbackup for a site with no robot, but that's another debate entirely! =P -Jonathan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 12:40 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave > Markham > > Correct. Unless you have mix retentions on media set which i think > everyone has agreed is a bad idea. Agreed...but mixed retentions has nothing to do with multiple volume pools. You can have 10 different retentions and only 1 volume pool, and you will not get two different retentions written to the same media. A single volume pool does not equal mixed retention on one media. > > Your description below uses 4 tapes ( if one tape per backup is used ) > which are all associated to the same volume pool. But each tape has a different retention. Paul ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Dave Markham > > Correct. Unless you have mix retentions on media set which i think > everyone has agreed is a bad idea. Agreed...but mixed retentions has nothing to do with multiple volume pools. You can have 10 different retentions and only 1 volume pool, and you will not get two different retentions written to the same media. A single volume pool does not equal mixed retention on one media. > > Your description below uses 4 tapes ( if one tape per backup is used ) > which are all associated to the same volume pool. But each tape has a different retention. Paul La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Correct. Unless you have mix retentions on media set which i think everyone has agreed is a bad idea. Your description below uses 4 tapes ( if one tape per backup is used ) which are all associated to the same volume pool. IMO this is bad practice. I do think it explains it well to the person who originally asked the question however which is nice. Paul Keating wrote: > Mistakenly hit ctrl+enter when I meant to ctrl+V > > Please read down... > > >> I don't believe your words were taken out of context, as even >> re-reading your follow-up, I'm interpretting your words the same way. >> >> I think you are misunderstanding what netbackup does...it >> DOES NOT mix retentions on a single media... >> >> If for instance you have one pool, named "netbackup" and you >> have 3 different policies, each with different retentions >> >> Ie. >> PolicyA -> FULL=4 weeks, INC=2 weeks -> pool=netbackup >> PolicyB -> FULL=8 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup >> PolicyB -> FULL=24 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup >> >> You will ned up with something simlar to the following: >> >> MediaID PoolRetention >> 01 Netbackup 24 weeks >> 02 Netbackup 8 weeks >> 03 Netbackup 4 weeks >> 04 Netbackup 2 weeks >> > > You will NOT get a 2 week and a 4 week retention backup written to the > same media ID, regardless of whether or not they're written to the same > volume pool. > > Paul > > > > > > La version française suit le texte anglais. > > > > This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the > Bank of > Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying > of this > email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is > unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it > immediately from > your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. > > > > Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou > confidentielle. > La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute > diffusion, > utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par > une > personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous > recevez > ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans > délai à > l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de > votre > ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu. > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Which then ties up media. You could have 1 file from a backup you assume to be retention of 1 week but as there is a file from a policy with a higher retention the tape has to honor that higher retention.This will only happen if you are mixing retentions on media ( off by default). This then means people who use the same tape pool are going to have tons of tapes around. Cheers Paul Keating wrote: > I don't believe your words were taken out of context, as even re-reading > your follow-up, I'm interpretting your words the same way. > > I think you are misunderstanding what netbackup does...it DOES NOT mix > retentions on a single media... > > If for instance you have one pool, named "netbackup" and you have 3 > different policies, each with different retentions > > Ie. > PolicyA -> FULL=4 weeks, INC=2 weeks -> pool=netbackup > PolicyB -> FULL=8 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup > PolicyB -> FULL=24 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup > > You will ned up with something simlar to the following: > > MediaID PoolRetention > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > > > > > > > > > La version française suit le texte anglais. > > > > This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the > Bank of > Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying > of this > email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is > unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it > immediately from > your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. > > > > Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou > confidentielle. > La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute > diffusion, > utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par > une > personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous > recevez > ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans > délai à > l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de > votre > ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu. > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
I know exactly how it works im afraid and was posing the question to people who use 1 tape pool. What about mixed retentions? To explain further i meant what about having different retentions on the same media which you would need to turn on in order to have full backups incremental etc to use the same tape pool and have different retentions. This to me is a bit surprising that someone would do it so i posed the question. D Paul Keating wrote: > I don't believe your words were taken out of context, as even re-reading > your follow-up, I'm interpretting your words the same way. > > I think you are misunderstanding what netbackup does...it DOES NOT mix > retentions on a single media... > > If for instance you have one pool, named "netbackup" and you have 3 > different policies, each with different retentions > > Ie. > PolicyA -> FULL=4 weeks, INC=2 weeks -> pool=netbackup > PolicyB -> FULL=8 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup > PolicyB -> FULL=24 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup > > You will ned up with something simlar to the following: > > MediaID PoolRetention > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > > > > > > > > > La version française suit le texte anglais. > > > > This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the > Bank of > Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying > of this > email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is > unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it > immediately from > your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. > > > > Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou > confidentielle. > La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute > diffusion, > utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par > une > personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous > recevez > ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans > délai à > l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de > votre > ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu. > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Agree. IMO simple for small to medium sized solutions is cumulative incremental backups daily and full backups at weekends and at month end with an offsite daily if required. This then defines sensibly you should have 4 different retentions.. dailys 1 to 2 weeks retention. Reason: whats the point in keeping the same data filling up tapes when you have just written it to a full backup. Any requirement for individual day restores after this time then agreed different approach is required. weekly 1-2 months retention. Reason whats the point in having many weeklys when you have taken a monthly full backup. monthly 6 months: Reason: backup runs once every 4 weeks say so doesnt use many tapes over the year thus leaving you to have a longer retention for your data. Anything wanted to be kept over 6 months should be defined separately. offsite 2 weeks Reason: no point having out of date offsite backups in event of DR you want the latest info. That to me is simple :) D Wayne T Smith wrote: > KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid! > > It's easy to over-manage NetBackup, because it lets you. I recommend > that you keep things simple, and deviate from the simple when it's > evident that you should. > > If the NetBackup pool contains all of your assigned tapes and the > Scratch pool contains all of your available tapes, life is simple. > How many tapes are in use? Count the number of tapes in NetBackup. > How many tapes are available for backups? Count the number of tapes in > Scratch. All free tapes are available for the next backup. > > Cleaning tapes, if any, will be in pool NONE. I use another pool for > "suspect" tapes ... tapes that have had "an event" such as a read or > write error. If on v6.0, you probably have pool for catalog backups. > If you duplicate/vault tapes, you probably have another couple of > pools (one for catalog backups; one for data) for your catalog and > image copies. > > Why make more pools? One reason might be to insulate free tapes in a > pool from others. For example, in my shop our Oracle Agent backups > take precedence over file system backups. We don't want independent > file system backups "filling" a tape pool, possibly delaying backups > and causing our archive redo log spaces to fill. I'm sure there are > other reasons for more pools, but in general, I recommend: KISS. :-) > > cheers, wayne > > Wilkinson, Alex wrote, in part, on 4/25/2006 8:46 PM: >> What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? >> >> We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data tapes. >> Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this >> situation ? >> > ___ > 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] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Mistakenly hit ctrl+enter when I meant to ctrl+V Please read down... > I don't believe your words were taken out of context, as even > re-reading your follow-up, I'm interpretting your words the same way. > > I think you are misunderstanding what netbackup does...it > DOES NOT mix retentions on a single media... > > If for instance you have one pool, named "netbackup" and you > have 3 different policies, each with different retentions > > Ie. > PolicyA -> FULL=4 weeks, INC=2 weeks -> pool=netbackup > PolicyB -> FULL=8 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup > PolicyB -> FULL=24 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup > > You will ned up with something simlar to the following: > > MediaID PoolRetention > 01Netbackup 24 weeks > 02Netbackup 8 weeks > 03Netbackup 4 weeks > 04Netbackup 2 weeks You will NOT get a 2 week and a 4 week retention backup written to the same media ID, regardless of whether or not they're written to the same volume pool. Paul La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
I don't believe your words were taken out of context, as even re-reading your follow-up, I'm interpretting your words the same way. I think you are misunderstanding what netbackup does...it DOES NOT mix retentions on a single media... If for instance you have one pool, named "netbackup" and you have 3 different policies, each with different retentions Ie. PolicyA -> FULL=4 weeks, INC=2 weeks -> pool=netbackup PolicyB -> FULL=8 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup PolicyB -> FULL=24 weeks, INC=4 weeks -> pool=netbackup You will ned up with something simlar to the following: MediaID PoolRetention 01 Netbackup 24 weeks 01 Netbackup 24 weeks 01 Netbackup 24 weeks 01 Netbackup 24 weeks -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Dave Markham > Sent: April 26, 2006 12:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > > > I think that my words have been taken out of context. I know you cant > and shouldn't mix retentions on media which is why i find it hard that > people use 1 media pool for all backups. From that i would assume they > have the same retention for all backups. This in my opinion which is > only my opinion is a bad idea. > > To give advise to the original thread i was saying that one > volume pool > for all backups is perhaps not the right way to do things and i was > surprised by the number of people who seemed to adopt it. I > asked about > mixed retentions as people with 1 volume pool cannot ( safely ) then > have a full backup with a different retention than say a > cumulative backup. La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
I think that my words have been taken out of context. I know you cant and shouldn't mix retentions on media which is why i find it hard that people use 1 media pool for all backups. From that i would assume they have the same retention for all backups. This in my opinion which is only my opinion is a bad idea. To give advise to the original thread i was saying that one volume pool for all backups is perhaps not the right way to do things and i was surprised by the number of people who seemed to adopt it. I asked about mixed retentions as people with 1 volume pool cannot ( safely ) then have a full backup with a different retention than say a cumulative backup. Cheers bob944 wrote: > Dave Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I am surprised by the number of people using a single volume pool for >> data backups. What about mixed retentions on media? >> > > What about them? NetBackup *never* puts different retentions on a tape > unless you force it to with the MULTIPLE_RETENTIONS_PER_MEDIA directive > (and there are very few situations where that's a good idea). > > You are managing something that doesn't need to be managed. There are > better uses for administrator brainpower. > > I'm holding my tongue on a certain British colleague's pathological > overmanagement. :-) > > > > ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Wayne T Smith wrote: > Wilkinson, Alex wrote, in part, on 4/26/2006 10:08 AM: >> Is it possible to restrict a subset of users to a particular Volume >> Pool ? >> Or only a media server ? >> > > A Policy writes to a particular Volume Pool. > > cheers, wayne > ___ > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu > Or more indepthly (if that were a word) a policy can have a default volume pool, but you can set a different volume pool for schedules defined within that policy on a per schedule basis :) ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Dave Markham wrote, in part, on 4/26/2006 5:28 AM: I am surprised by the number of people using a single volume pool for data backups. What about mixed retentions on media? My feeling is that not many shops mix retentions on a tape volume. I don't, so maybe that's why. ;-) If you decide you must separate daily from weekly from monthly, and they share the same retention, then you probably need separate Volume Pools and you specify a separate volume pool in each policy schedule. I don't see the need and don't ;-) In case it's unclear to those folks new to NetBackup, a Volume Pool can hold tapes that are free or assigned, and if assigned, be of any and various retentions. cheers, wayne ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Wilkinson, Alex wrote, in part, on 4/26/2006 9:27 AM: 1. You say tapes with errors will be moved to the "none" pool. I was under the impression they would be 'frozen' and left in their orginating Volume Pool ? NetBackup never moves tapes to NONE. You are right that a frozen tape is an assigned tape and can't be moved from its current pool. However, some of us unfreeze the tape and "change" it from it's current pool to a "cesspool" (I use "Baudelaire"), where it sits until I get a chance to erase it, test it, eye-ball it or whatever, before putting it back in service or discarding it. The key for me is that I can't erase it while it is assigned. If I just bpexpdate (expire) it, it will go back to Scratch and be available for a new write. 2. What is the "DataStore" Pool actually designed to be used for ? Good question! I have no idea. 3. You mention that cleaning tapes would go into the "None" pool. I was origally thinking of creating a "CLN" pool. Bad idea ? You have some options wrt cleaning your tape drives. If your library does it, NetBackup doesn't even see the cleaning tape. If NetBackup is to use them, I think (skepticism = high!) the cleaning tape(s) must be in the NONE pool. cheers, wayne ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Wilkinson, Alex wrote, in part, on 4/26/2006 10:08 AM: Is it possible to restrict a subset of users to a particular Volume Pool ? Or only a media server ? A Policy writes to a particular Volume Pool. cheers, wayne ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
WOW lots of threads... I didn't read them all but I do have a suggestion. Place tapes that have had a read/write errors or were frozen into a temporary pool until they can be checked out. The pool name - cesspool Bob StumpIncorrigible punster -- Do not incorrige>>> "Wilkinson, Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 4/25/2006 8:46 PM >>> Hi all,What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ?We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data tapes.Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this situation ?-aW___Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.eduhttp://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Alex In response 1. You say tapes with errors will be moved to the "none" pool. I was under the impression they would be 'frozen' and left in their orginating Volume Pool ? Can you please clarify what you mean by this. ABSWER: Bob, can you explain this to me too :-) Because I have never seen tapes move to NONE pool myself. 2. What is the "DataStore" Pool actually designed to be used for ? ANSWER: I believe this is used for Datastore specific volumes. Again, not used this! 3. You mention that cleaning tapes would go into the "None" pool. I was origally thinking of creating a "CLN" pool. Bad idea ? ANSWER: NONE Pool is what I use with a Barcode Rule of CLN Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Wilkinson, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 14:28 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] 0n Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:49:25AM -0400, bob944 wrote: >Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations. This is the right one. :-) > >> What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? >> >> We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our >> data tapes. >> Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for >> this situation ? > >Yes to the first, no to the second. > >Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup. Everything else in >"dsto-mlb". > >- "dsto-mlb" is a made-up name to suggest that you name your primary >pool after your datacenter (and supposing DSTO and Melbourne and that >you have, or may later have, other datacenters). The intent is to have >a simple way to keep your DC's tapes separate from "dsto-prth"'s tapes >during the inevitable consolidation or other circumstance that >co-mingles your and foreign tapes. > >- Practically, you'll still have a None pool (cleaning tapes, tapes >with errors you don't want used until you test or toss them). And >probably a scratch pool, a duplicates pool or two, a duplicate catalog >backup pool, the goofy DataStore pool unused. > >- I always suggest a "test" pool. Keeps your production pool from >accumulating junk test data, frees you to do any testing and expiring >you need to without risk of filling/tying-up/expiring production tapes. >Test what you want, expire the tapes when done and let them go back to >scratch. > >- There _are_ reasons to have separate pools. Find a logical division >_with_ a reason that justifies the administrative and operational >burden. > >- - Customer privacy. Do you have two clients whose data should not be >mixed? Army and Navy pools, then. Related to this is restricting >access to a pool to a specified host (media server) if there's a Really >Good Reason to do this. >- - Minimizing collateral damage. Does someone occasionally leak >classified info onto an unclassified system--requiring you to destroy >all unclassified backups which might contain it? Subdivide in any way >that makes sense to minimize loss of the rest of the backups. >- - Related to the above, is there a project or client whose backups may >need to go elsewhere tomorrow? Just eject all the tapes in that pool >and send them on their way with 100% of their info without losing any >that's not theirs. >- - And a third variation on the going-offsite theme: Maybe a >given-to-legal pool for duplicating backups that go off to some other >entity and may not return... >- - Availability assurance. Have a really small library and need to be >positive there'll be enough tape for the big weekend database backup? >Separate, stocked-up "oracle" pool so that other backups/users can't use >up those tapes. Or a separate "user" pool if you allow user >backups/archives and that's the group that might use up your free space >(though this method loses a lot with the advent of automatic draw from a >scratch pool). > >There are undoubtedly other good reasons, but if you insist that someone >come up with a rationale that can't be met any other way--not just >something that _sounds_ logical. It makes me crazy to see Full and >Incremental pools, or Unix and Windows ones. Remember that pools are >another multiplier of tapes-in-use, alongside mul
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
KISS = Keep It Simple, Stupid! It's easy to over-manage NetBackup, because it lets you. I recommend that you keep things simple, and deviate from the simple when it's evident that you should. If the NetBackup pool contains all of your assigned tapes and the Scratch pool contains all of your available tapes, life is simple. How many tapes are in use? Count the number of tapes in NetBackup. How many tapes are available for backups? Count the number of tapes in Scratch. All free tapes are available for the next backup. Cleaning tapes, if any, will be in pool NONE. I use another pool for "suspect" tapes ... tapes that have had "an event" such as a read or write error. If on v6.0, you probably have pool for catalog backups. If you duplicate/vault tapes, you probably have another couple of pools (one for catalog backups; one for data) for your catalog and image copies. Why make more pools? One reason might be to insulate free tapes in a pool from others. For example, in my shop our Oracle Agent backups take precedence over file system backups. We don't want independent file system backups "filling" a tape pool, possibly delaying backups and causing our archive redo log spaces to fill. I'm sure there are other reasons for more pools, but in general, I recommend: KISS. :-) cheers, wayne Wilkinson, Alex wrote, in part, on 4/25/2006 8:46 PM: What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data tapes. Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this situation ? ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE:[Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Dave Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am surprised by the number of people using a single volume pool for > data backups. What about mixed retentions on media? What about them? NetBackup *never* puts different retentions on a tape unless you force it to with the MULTIPLE_RETENTIONS_PER_MEDIA directive (and there are very few situations where that's a good idea). You are managing something that doesn't need to be managed. There are better uses for administrator brainpower. I'm holding my tongue on a certain British colleague's pathological overmanagement. :-) ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
If by users, you mean backup cients, then you can specify volume pool on a per policy basisor if you prefer, even within a policy, you can override the policy default, and specify pool per schedule. Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Wilkinson, Alex > Sent: April 26, 2006 10:08 AM > To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > > > Is it possible to restrict a subset of users to a particular > Volume Pool ? > Or only a media server ? > > -aW La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
0n Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:49:25AM -0400, bob944 wrote: >- - Customer privacy. Do you have two clients whose data should not be >mixed? Army and Navy pools, then. Related to this is restricting >access to a pool to a specified host (media server) if there's a Really >Good Reason to do this. Is it possible to restrict a subset of users to a particular Volume Pool ? Or only a media server ? -aW ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
0n Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:57:48PM +0930, Wilkinson, Alex wrote: >0n Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:49:25AM -0400, bob944 wrote: > >>Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations. This is the right one. :-) >> >>> What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? >>> >>> We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our >>> data tapes. >>> Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for >>> this situation ? >> >>Yes to the first, no to the second. >> >>Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup. Everything else in >>"dsto-mlb". >> >>- "dsto-mlb" is a made-up name to suggest that you name your primary >>pool after your datacenter (and supposing DSTO and Melbourne and that >>you have, or may later have, other datacenters). The intent is to have >>a simple way to keep your DC's tapes separate from "dsto-prth"'s tapes >>during the inevitable consolidation or other circumstance that >>co-mingles your and foreign tapes. >> >>- Practically, you'll still have a None pool (cleaning tapes, tapes >>with errors you don't want used until you test or toss them). And >>probably a scratch pool, a duplicates pool or two, a duplicate catalog >>backup pool, the goofy DataStore pool unused. >> >>- I always suggest a "test" pool. Keeps your production pool from >>accumulating junk test data, frees you to do any testing and expiring >>you need to without risk of filling/tying-up/expiring production tapes. >>Test what you want, expire the tapes when done and let them go back to >>scratch. >> >>- There _are_ reasons to have separate pools. Find a logical division >>_with_ a reason that justifies the administrative and operational >>burden. >> >>- - Customer privacy. Do you have two clients whose data should not be >>mixed? Army and Navy pools, then. Related to this is restricting >>access to a pool to a specified host (media server) if there's a Really >>Good Reason to do this. >>- - Minimizing collateral damage. Does someone occasionally leak >>classified info onto an unclassified system--requiring you to destroy >>all unclassified backups which might contain it? Subdivide in any way >>that makes sense to minimize loss of the rest of the backups. >>- - Related to the above, is there a project or client whose backups may >>need to go elsewhere tomorrow? Just eject all the tapes in that pool >>and send them on their way with 100% of their info without losing any >>that's not theirs. >>- - And a third variation on the going-offsite theme: Maybe a >>given-to-legal pool for duplicating backups that go off to some other >>entity and may not return... >>- - Availability assurance. Have a really small library and need to be >>positive there'll be enough tape for the big weekend database backup? >>Separate, stocked-up "oracle" pool so that other backups/users can't use >>up those tapes. Or a separate "user" pool if you allow user >>backups/archives and that's the group that might use up your free space >>(though this method loses a lot with the advent of automatic draw from a >>scratch pool). >> >>There are undoubtedly other good reasons, but if you insist that someone >>come up with a rationale that can't be met any other way--not just >>something that _sounds_ logical. It makes me crazy to see Full and >>Incremental pools, or Unix and Windows ones. Remember that pools are >>another multiplier of tapes-in-use, alongside multiple media servers, >>mux/non-mux and differen retention levels. >> >>You're on the right track. Simplify. Let the computer manage what it >>can and save your brain for important things. > >Awesome detailed reply Bob. Thank ! Much appreciated. However, I have a few >quick questions still: > >1. You say tapes with errors will be moved to the "none" pool. I was under the > impression they would be 'frozen' and left in their orginating Volume Pool ? > Can you please clarify what you mean by this. > >2. What is the "DataStore" Pool actually designed to be used for ? > >3. You mention that cleaning tapes would go into the "None" pool. I was origally >thinking of creating a "CLN" pool. Bad idea ? > >Cheers and thanks to everyone who is responding. Please keep your opinions and >ideas flowing in. I am _very_ interested ! > > -aW Oh and another question: Why would I need a 'duplicates' and 'catalogue duplicates' pool ? -aW
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Hi Paul The example, WAS an example :-) I wasn't reflecting anything of my setup - purely examples :-) Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Paul Keating [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 14:49 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > -Original Message- > From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > It may or may not be a problem, but if 1 1/2 tapes are used > for a policy > with a 2 week retention and then a 2nd policy comes along and uses the > remainder of that 1/2 tape with a retention of 2 months, that > tape cannot be > used until the image expires (at least that is how I see it). Yes, however, Netbackup will not do thatone a tape is written with an image with a 2 week retention, that tape will only be used for other images with a 2 week retention, untill the tape is filled, and then after 2 weeks, the entire tape will return to scratch. There is an explicit option "mix retentions on media" that you can enable, if you really have a justification, but I can't think of one. > > We have Policies that include Full and Incrementals. They are > multiplexed > onto several tapes, but Incrementals are set to only > multiplex to one tape. Hmmmlooking at my schedules, I'm trying to figure out how you limit the number of tapes used on a per schedule basis, in a given policy. > I would say your environment is a lot smaller compared to > ours (not really > sure of your setup), but again each Business is going to do things > differently. Yeahfor sureyou've got more than double the amount of data backed up. I guess the way you broke it down in your example, ie. a server, three tapes...implied something smaller. That could be an issuebut if you have 50 clients in a policy and you do have cases where 2 policies use a pool, then you are taking advantage of economy of scale...if you've got 13 policies, then you've got what? About 10-12 pools? That doesn't sound so bad. Paul -- This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
> -Original Message- > From: WEAVER, Simon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > It may or may not be a problem, but if 1 1/2 tapes are used > for a policy > with a 2 week retention and then a 2nd policy comes along and uses the > remainder of that 1/2 tape with a retention of 2 months, that > tape cannot be > used until the image expires (at least that is how I see it). Yes, however, Netbackup will not do thatone a tape is written with an image with a 2 week retention, that tape will only be used for other images with a 2 week retention, untill the tape is filled, and then after 2 weeks, the entire tape will return to scratch. There is an explicit option "mix retentions on media" that you can enable, if you really have a justification, but I can't think of one. > > We have Policies that include Full and Incrementals. They are > multiplexed > onto several tapes, but Incrementals are set to only > multiplex to one tape. Hmmmlooking at my schedules, I'm trying to figure out how you limit the number of tapes used on a per schedule basis, in a given policy. > I would say your environment is a lot smaller compared to > ours (not really > sure of your setup), but again each Business is going to do things > differently. Yeahfor sureyou've got more than double the amount of data backed up. I guess the way you broke it down in your example, ie. a server, three tapes...implied something smaller. That could be an issuebut if you have 50 clients in a policy and you do have cases where 2 policies use a pool, then you are taking advantage of economy of scale...if you've got 13 policies, then you've got what? About 10-12 pools? That doesn't sound so bad. Paul -- La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
0n Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:49:25AM -0400, bob944 wrote: >Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations. This is the right one. :-) > >> What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? >> >> We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our >> data tapes. >> Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for >> this situation ? > >Yes to the first, no to the second. > >Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup. Everything else in >"dsto-mlb". > >- "dsto-mlb" is a made-up name to suggest that you name your primary >pool after your datacenter (and supposing DSTO and Melbourne and that >you have, or may later have, other datacenters). The intent is to have >a simple way to keep your DC's tapes separate from "dsto-prth"'s tapes >during the inevitable consolidation or other circumstance that >co-mingles your and foreign tapes. > >- Practically, you'll still have a None pool (cleaning tapes, tapes >with errors you don't want used until you test or toss them). And >probably a scratch pool, a duplicates pool or two, a duplicate catalog >backup pool, the goofy DataStore pool unused. > >- I always suggest a "test" pool. Keeps your production pool from >accumulating junk test data, frees you to do any testing and expiring >you need to without risk of filling/tying-up/expiring production tapes. >Test what you want, expire the tapes when done and let them go back to >scratch. > >- There _are_ reasons to have separate pools. Find a logical division >_with_ a reason that justifies the administrative and operational >burden. > >- - Customer privacy. Do you have two clients whose data should not be >mixed? Army and Navy pools, then. Related to this is restricting >access to a pool to a specified host (media server) if there's a Really >Good Reason to do this. >- - Minimizing collateral damage. Does someone occasionally leak >classified info onto an unclassified system--requiring you to destroy >all unclassified backups which might contain it? Subdivide in any way >that makes sense to minimize loss of the rest of the backups. >- - Related to the above, is there a project or client whose backups may >need to go elsewhere tomorrow? Just eject all the tapes in that pool >and send them on their way with 100% of their info without losing any >that's not theirs. >- - And a third variation on the going-offsite theme: Maybe a >given-to-legal pool for duplicating backups that go off to some other >entity and may not return... >- - Availability assurance. Have a really small library and need to be >positive there'll be enough tape for the big weekend database backup? >Separate, stocked-up "oracle" pool so that other backups/users can't use >up those tapes. Or a separate "user" pool if you allow user >backups/archives and that's the group that might use up your free space >(though this method loses a lot with the advent of automatic draw from a >scratch pool). > >There are undoubtedly other good reasons, but if you insist that someone >come up with a rationale that can't be met any other way--not just >something that _sounds_ logical. It makes me crazy to see Full and >Incremental pools, or Unix and Windows ones. Remember that pools are >another multiplier of tapes-in-use, alongside multiple media servers, >mux/non-mux and differen retention levels. > >You're on the right track. Simplify. Let the computer manage what it >can and save your brain for important things. Awesome detailed reply Bob. Thank ! Much appreciated. However, I have a few quick questions still: 1. You say tapes with errors will be moved to the "none" pool. I was under the impression they would be 'frozen' and left in their orginating Volume Pool ? Can you please clarify what you mean by this. 2. What is the "DataStore" Pool actually designed to be used for ? 3. You mention that cleaning tapes would go into the "None" pool. I was origally thinking of creating a "CLN" pool. Bad idea ? Cheers and thanks to everyone who is responding. Please keep your opinions and ideas flowing in. I am _very_ interested ! -aW ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Paul It may or may not be a problem, but if 1 1/2 tapes are used for a policy with a 2 week retention and then a 2nd policy comes along and uses the remainder of that 1/2 tape with a retention of 2 months, that tape cannot be used until the image expires (at least that is how I see it). We have Policies that include Full and Incrementals. They are multiplexed onto several tapes, but Incrementals are set to only multiplex to one tape. So yes, more tapes, bigger library, but as we backup 10TB of Data, I think its needed and on top of this, a further 4TB will be added later this year when we start backing up Unix and More Exchange Servers. Again, this is all going to be down to each and every environment and how best to implement Netbackup. I would say your environment is a lot smaller compared to ours (not really sure of your setup), but again each Business is going to do things differently. Im not sure if there is a misunderstanding here, but to put it again I have a Policy for each type of Server we have (example AD Servers, DNS Servers, Exchange, Unix, Mission Critical Clusters, ect). There are policies where they contain MULTIPLE clients (ie: 50) and share a single volume pool. I have some cases where 2 policies share the same volume pools, but in most cases each has a separate volume pool. And we always have around 40 - 50 scratch tapes available to use. The above does NOT include Month ends, which most are all in 1 separate policy with corresponding Volume Pools. Month end tapes are of course removed in a safe. It works very well, and with the correct multiplexing, we hardly use many tapes (seeing as we backup so much in a week). Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Paul Keating [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 13:51 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > Paul, note the word "possibly" in my last statement. My > thought of this was > 1 volume pool with say 3 tapes. Lets say one policy runs and > completes and > uses 1 1/2 tapes. Later a 2nd policy runs (using the same > pool) and possibly > uses the remainder of the 1/2 tape before starting a new tape. Uh hunh. Not sure how that's a problem...it makes the most efficient use of your tapes, otherwise half of your tapes are only half fullrequires more tapes, bigger library (more slots), more media management, more drives (ie. Tape belonging to a particular policy is in a drive, another policy cannot start to backup untill a free drive is available to insert it's own tape) I think the amalgation of volume pools is something that has to be done as businesses expand from SMB -> Enterprise. We have a business line that used to do their own "local" backups, and when we went to the Central Entrprise backup environment, one of their requirements was to have every server backed up to a spearate tape, that was removed each day, labeled with the date and server name, signed by the person who removed it, initialed by a witness, and sealed in an envelope, walked to the other "tower", and palced in a vault. Obviously that wasn't gonna workthis was a database application group, and we had to convince them that it was ok to let the Netbackup database manage the tapespart of "going big" I guess. > > Volume Pools, in my view should be separate in most cases. > But each to their > own. True..to each their own. Depends on the environment I suppose. I've got a small environment, (about 4TB in a full backup window) but it sounds a bit bigger than your's. I have 220 physical machines, plus several dozen VMs, in 42 policies (most clients fall into one of about 10 policies due to retention differences or mandated media segregation, the rest are one offs for specific filesystems, application, or whatever.) If each policy had it's own volume pool, a single night's incremental backup would probably use every tape in my 219 slot librarythe way we are currently setup, we currently have about 25 scratch tapes, and we haven't had to add or remove tapes in about 18 months, with 7 volume pools other than scratch. (including Daily, Weekly, Monthly and Yearly pools...though I'd like to migrate out of that paradigm.) Paul This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
I think you will find that each business has certain requirements and criteria on how to ensure the backups are carried out, implemented, setup and in cases, ensure restores can be done. Nothing wrong with this method - And again, seems to suit your needs. Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Dave Markham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 10:29 To: Wilkinson, Alex Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] I am surprised by the number of people using a single volume pool for data backups. What about mixed retentions on media? The way i do things is like this :- Have a daily, weekly, monthly, offsite, logs tape pools ( as well as netbackup, and none obviously ) Now whatever the policy and file list, clients etc i have a daily, weekly, monthly schedule which has different expiry times on it. Dailys i expire after 2 weeks, weeklys after 1 month and monthlys after 6 months. The volume pool is associated with the schedule and then all images from different policies are striped to tapes (mpx) to keep tape usage down and have the same retention on media. Weekly and monthly backups are then identified by tapes used in x hours for a certain tape pool or schedule name once a week and removed from the jukebox. The offsite pool i have is for ITC where it is used and have the second job write to an offsite pool which can then be identified daily and removed. This offsite pool only has a retention of 2 weeks for any schedule which runs as there is little point ( IMO ) of having 2 weeks old Disaster recovery data. Tapes are then brought back into to scratch after this 2 weeks and reused. The logs policy has a schedule which is infinite expiry as my customers sometimes want to keep logs indefinitely and these are usually written by a script on each client invoking bparchive or bpbackup with a list produced from find command. Each to there own, but there is what i do on a normal setup if you can find any use from it. Cheers Wilkinson, Alex wrote: > Hi all, > > What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? > > We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data > tapes. Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this > situation ? > > -aW > ___ > 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 This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
> Paul, note the word "possibly" in my last statement. My > thought of this was > 1 volume pool with say 3 tapes. Lets say one policy runs and > completes and > uses 1 1/2 tapes. Later a 2nd policy runs (using the same > pool) and possibly > uses the remainder of the 1/2 tape before starting a new tape. Uh hunh. Not sure how that's a problem...it makes the most efficient use of your tapes, otherwise half of your tapes are only half fullrequires more tapes, bigger library (more slots), more media management, more drives (ie. Tape belonging to a particular policy is in a drive, another policy cannot start to backup untill a free drive is available to insert it's own tape) I think the amalgation of volume pools is something that has to be done as businesses expand from SMB -> Enterprise. We have a business line that used to do their own "local" backups, and when we went to the Central Entrprise backup environment, one of their requirements was to have every server backed up to a spearate tape, that was removed each day, labeled with the date and server name, signed by the person who removed it, initialed by a witness, and sealed in an envelope, walked to the other "tower", and palced in a vault. Obviously that wasn't gonna workthis was a database application group, and we had to convince them that it was ok to let the Netbackup database manage the tapespart of "going big" I guess. > > Volume Pools, in my view should be separate in most cases. > But each to their > own. True..to each their own. Depends on the environment I suppose. I've got a small environment, (about 4TB in a full backup window) but it sounds a bit bigger than your's. I have 220 physical machines, plus several dozen VMs, in 42 policies (most clients fall into one of about 10 policies due to retention differences or mandated media segregation, the rest are one offs for specific filesystems, application, or whatever.) If each policy had it's own volume pool, a single night's incremental backup would probably use every tape in my 219 slot librarythe way we are currently setup, we currently have about 25 scratch tapes, and we haven't had to add or remove tapes in about 18 months, with 7 volume pools other than scratch. (including Daily, Weekly, Monthly and Yearly pools...though I'd like to migrate out of that paradigm.) Paul La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Paul Around 13 Policies, (For example: one for AD, one for SMS, SQL, Exchange, ect). There are policies that have multiple clients but each policy has a created volume pool. Paul, note the word "possibly" in my last statement. My thought of this was 1 volume pool with say 3 tapes. Lets say one policy runs and completes and uses 1 1/2 tapes. Later a 2nd policy runs (using the same pool) and possibly uses the remainder of the 1/2 tape before starting a new tape. Volume Pools, in my view should be separate in most cases. But each to their own. Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Paul Keating [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 13:20 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > WEAVER, Simon > 2) Each Policy has its own Volume Pool OMG!! How many policies? You don't multiplex at all? Sounds like you also have only one client per policy > 3) Easier to manage tapes (ie: Only tapes in a specified pool > will contain > data for the end client. Having all tapes in one pool, with > all clients > using them means that possibly tape retention and expiry of > tapes could be > an issue. Nope...by default netbackup does not mix retentions on a single media.even within a given volume pool. Paul -- This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > WEAVER, Simon > 2) Each Policy has its own Volume Pool OMG!! How many policies? You don't multiplex at all? Sounds like you also have only one client per policy > 3) Easier to manage tapes (ie: Only tapes in a specified pool > will contain > data for the end client. Having all tapes in one pool, with > all clients > using them means that possibly tape retention and expiry of > tapes could be > an issue. Nope...by default netbackup does not mix retentions on a single media.even within a given volume pool. Paul -- La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
You're Right on both counts. However, it seems Symantec/Veritas has now assumed that Netbackup Enterprise Server is being used in busy Enterprise environments and have made the online cat backup the defacto method as of 6.0 Paul -- > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > WEAVER, Simon > Sent: April 26, 2006 2:59 AM > To: 'Mansell, Richard'; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] > > > > Richard > Although recommended, Online Cat backups were originally designed for > Enterprise Backup Environments where there is no "window" to > perform an > offline backup. In other words, it will work while normal backups are > running at the same time. > Also (I think I am write!), online catalog backups allow the > use to span > more tapes, where an offline uses 1. La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
I am surprised by the number of people using a single volume pool for data backups. What about mixed retentions on media? The way i do things is like this :- Have a daily, weekly, monthly, offsite, logs tape pools ( as well as netbackup, and none obviously ) Now whatever the policy and file list, clients etc i have a daily, weekly, monthly schedule which has different expiry times on it. Dailys i expire after 2 weeks, weeklys after 1 month and monthlys after 6 months. The volume pool is associated with the schedule and then all images from different policies are striped to tapes (mpx) to keep tape usage down and have the same retention on media. Weekly and monthly backups are then identified by tapes used in x hours for a certain tape pool or schedule name once a week and removed from the jukebox. The offsite pool i have is for ITC where it is used and have the second job write to an offsite pool which can then be identified daily and removed. This offsite pool only has a retention of 2 weeks for any schedule which runs as there is little point ( IMO ) of having 2 weeks old Disaster recovery data. Tapes are then brought back into to scratch after this 2 weeks and reused. The logs policy has a schedule which is infinite expiry as my customers sometimes want to keep logs indefinitely and these are usually written by a script on each client invoking bparchive or bpbackup with a list produced from find command. Each to there own, but there is what i do on a normal setup if you can find any use from it. Cheers Wilkinson, Alex wrote: > Hi all, > > What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? > > We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data tapes. > Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this situation ? > > -aW > ___ > 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] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Richard Although recommended, Online Cat backups were originally designed for Enterprise Backup Environments where there is no "window" to perform an offline backup. In other words, it will work while normal backups are running at the same time. Also (I think I am write!), online catalog backups allow the use to span more tapes, where an offline uses 1. Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Mansell, Richard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 06:06 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] FWIW, in NBU 6 hot catalogue backups are the recommended way to go and a pool called CatalogBackup gets created especially for that purpose. We therefore just use NetBackup for the normal data tapes and it is fed from a scratch pool. Since we use the vault option we also have a VaultCatalogue and a VaultData pool. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bob944 Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2006 4:49 pm To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; 'Wilkinson, Alex' Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations. This is the right one. :-) > What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? > > We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data > tapes. > Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this > situation ? Yes to the first, no to the second. Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup. Everything else in "dsto-mlb". ** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz ** ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Hi Rusty, Within Netbackup the volume pool identifies a logical set of volumes by usage. Associating volumes with a volume pool protects them from access by unauthorized users, groups, or applications. Media Manager (within Netbacckup) creates a volume pool, named "NetBackup", for NetBackup(as you mentioned). My recommendation is to create any or all volume pools first. Then as you add volumes, you can assign them to volume pools. Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Major, Rusty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 03:30 To: Wilkinson, Alex; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] I have been looking for Volume Pool best practices as we are also going from multiple single volume pools to one large one, but I can't find much of anything published. I would recommend creating a volume pool. Leave the NetBackup pool for the catalog tapes only. -Rusty -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilkinson, Alex Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:47 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Hi all, What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data tapes. Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this situation ? -aW ___ 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 This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Alex Each to their own at the end of the day. What I have done in the past and present is: 1) Netbackup Pool is for the netbackup catalog tapes (currently 2 live in there). 2) Each Policy has its own Volume Pool 3) Easier to manage tapes (ie: Only tapes in a specified pool will contain data for the end client. Having all tapes in one pool, with all clients using them means that possibly tape retention and expiry of tapes could be an issue. Example: Client1 Policy has a Volume pool called Client1_Full and Client1_Incr And so on HTH Regards Simon Weaver 3rd Line Technical Support Windows Domain Administrator EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS) Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Wilkinson, Alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 April 2006 01:47 To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Hi all, What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data tapes. Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this situation ? -aW ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu This email is for the intended addressee only. If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or otherwise deal with it. Please notify the sender by return email. The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS Astrium Limited. Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or obligation. EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259 Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
FWIW, in NBU 6 hot catalogue backups are the recommended way to go and a pool called CatalogBackup gets created especially for that purpose. We therefore just use NetBackup for the normal data tapes and it is fed from a scratch pool. Since we use the vault option we also have a VaultCatalogue and a VaultData pool. Regards Richard -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bob944 Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2006 4:49 pm To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu; 'Wilkinson, Alex' Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations. This is the right one. :-) > What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? > > We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data > tapes. > Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this > situation ? Yes to the first, no to the second. Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup. Everything else in "dsto-mlb". ** This electronic email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. The views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the Christchurch City Council. If you are not the correct recipient of this email please advise the sender and delete. Christchurch City Council http://www.ccc.govt.nz ** ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations. This is the right one. :-) > What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? > > We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our > data tapes. > Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for > this situation ? Yes to the first, no to the second. Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup. Everything else in "dsto-mlb". - "dsto-mlb" is a made-up name to suggest that you name your primary pool after your datacenter (and supposing DSTO and Melbourne and that you have, or may later have, other datacenters). The intent is to have a simple way to keep your DC's tapes separate from "dsto-prth"'s tapes during the inevitable consolidation or other circumstance that co-mingles your and foreign tapes. - Practically, you'll still have a None pool (cleaning tapes, tapes with errors you don't want used until you test or toss them). And probably a scratch pool, a duplicates pool or two, a duplicate catalog backup pool, the goofy DataStore pool unused. - I always suggest a "test" pool. Keeps your production pool from accumulating junk test data, frees you to do any testing and expiring you need to without risk of filling/tying-up/expiring production tapes. Test what you want, expire the tapes when done and let them go back to scratch. - There _are_ reasons to have separate pools. Find a logical division _with_ a reason that justifies the administrative and operational burden. - - Customer privacy. Do you have two clients whose data should not be mixed? Army and Navy pools, then. Related to this is restricting access to a pool to a specified host (media server) if there's a Really Good Reason to do this. - - Minimizing collateral damage. Does someone occasionally leak classified info onto an unclassified system--requiring you to destroy all unclassified backups which might contain it? Subdivide in any way that makes sense to minimize loss of the rest of the backups. - - Related to the above, is there a project or client whose backups may need to go elsewhere tomorrow? Just eject all the tapes in that pool and send them on their way with 100% of their info without losing any that's not theirs. - - And a third variation on the going-offsite theme: Maybe a given-to-legal pool for duplicating backups that go off to some other entity and may not return... - - Availability assurance. Have a really small library and need to be positive there'll be enough tape for the big weekend database backup? Separate, stocked-up "oracle" pool so that other backups/users can't use up those tapes. Or a separate "user" pool if you allow user backups/archives and that's the group that might use up your free space (though this method loses a lot with the advent of automatic draw from a scratch pool). There are undoubtedly other good reasons, but if you insist that someone come up with a rationale that can't be met any other way--not just something that _sounds_ logical. It makes me crazy to see Full and Incremental pools, or Unix and Windows ones. Remember that pools are another multiplier of tapes-in-use, alongside multiple media servers, mux/non-mux and differen retention levels. You're on the right track. Simplify. Let the computer manage what it can and save your brain for important things. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
I have been looking for Volume Pool best practices as we are also going from multiple single volume pools to one large one, but I can't find much of anything published. I would recommend creating a volume pool. Leave the NetBackup pool for the catalog tapes only. -Rusty -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilkinson, Alex Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 7:47 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Hi all, What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ? We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our data tapes. Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for this situation ? -aW ___ 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
