[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, all you should have to do is bpexpdate the tape number and the
tape should be reusable.
That has worked in the past. It just seems to be this one batch had
problems.
deassignbyid is a bit of a big hammer to use casually. I'd do:
bpexpdate -d 0 -m
Does this help?
http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/274287.htm
Simon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 5:25 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Backup Exec
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:15 AM, King, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I haven't been on the list in about a year due to other work load. I now
find the version of NBU we're running is only supported until
3/31/2008. We would like to upgrade to v6.5.1. Just checking for
opinions on that
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:15 AM, King, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I haven't been on the list in about a year due to other work load. I now
find the version of NBU we're running is only supported until
3/31/2008. We would like to upgrade to
For what its worth I've been running 6.5.1 (upgrade from 6.0 MP4) at our 2nd
largest site for 3 months now without issue. Its Windows (unlike the OP's
Solaris config) but I've only had one issue so far and its only been medium as
far as criticality. (Error-191's when duplicating dssu data to
I dislike spam too, but lets not go throwing the Riverbed product under the bus
because of it. =P
We did a pretty thorough analysis of the Riverbed product versus three major
competitors two years ago and found that *by far* Riverbed was the best WAN
Acceleration device on the market.
Has anyone come across an issue with a connectivity limitation with HP LTO3
drives?
I have a customer with a large SSO environment. They are having issues with
connectivity dropping to their FC attached HP LTO3 drives.
One of the initial observations from the suppliers are that there is a limit
Cheryl
We have been running 6.5.1 in our test lab for 3 months now, with no
problems.
=
Carl Stehman
IT Distributed Services Team
Pepco Holdings, Inc.
202-331-6619
Pager 301-765-2703
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
King, Cheryl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cheryl,
Make the leap of faith. I have 3 installations and I upgraded from 5.1
MP6 to 6.0 MP4 at one location and from 5.1 MP6 to 6.5.1 at another
location and both upgrades went smoothly and both sites have been
running great for over 2 months. Use the nbcc utility and work with
Symantec to
http://www.symantec.com/business/support/release_details.jsp?pid=15143
Check this link.
-Original Message-
From: WEAVER, Simon (external) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 11:51 PM
To: King, Cheryl; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Is
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sounds like 6.0MP6 is the place to be or a lot of testing with 6.5.1
should be performed first ;-)
I did not say that. With *ANY* release, testing should be done, if
possible. I do not believe that 6.0MP6 is more stable
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Michael Graff Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
We are about to replace our backup server and I have used the Backup
Planning and Performance Tuning Guide for 6.0 to size our new server
Our server people think the sizing is wrong, more specifically that it
Lol. Thanks for the feedback and for getting the bugs out for us, over
the years.
From: Ed Wilts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:45 AM
To: King, Cheryl
Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Is NBU v6.5.1 stable?
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008
Oops, didn't write that the master/media server will have 4x 1 Gbit
NICs 8x LT03 tape drives. Using the document I arrived at 8 CPUs
4.6 GB RAM
Trying to get a server that can handle the NICs tape drive at full
tilt peoples experiences with using this document or other methods
of sizing
You didn't specify the OS either. You're going to need some serious staging
units since you have 400MB of theoretical bandwidth in and about twice that
out to tape. You either have too many tape drives or they're going to be
underutilized.
No matter what OS, that memory seems awfully tight. I
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Ed Wilts wrote:
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Sounds like 6.0MP6 is the place to be or a lot of testing with 6.5.1
should be performed first ;-)
I did not say that. With *ANY* release, testing should be done, if
possible.
How do you arrive at 16 GB memory ?
Regards
Michael
2008/3/26, Ed Wilts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You didn't specify the OS either. You're going to need some serious staging
units since you have 400MB of theoretical bandwidth in and about twice that
out to tape. You either have too many tape
About time they got us one of these. I see on there where they've also
promised us an aptare mailing list. Very cool.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ed Wilts
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:27 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Michael Graff Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
How do you arrive at 16 GB memory ?
Some things can't be calculated - it's based on gut feel and experience.
Symantec's performance and tuning guide is seriously lacking in way too many
places. I've already
Question,
On 32bit Linux if you try to backup millions ~3.3 million
hardlinks/symlinks/files, the bpbkar process will coredump/crash as it
hits the 3 GiB limit in a 3/1 split on 32-bit Linux.
If you have an include_list that you are telling bpbackup to use to backup
files and it is 1 MiB or
Is there something specific you are looking to get answered or just
experiences?
On 3/25/08, Robin Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We're running SLES9SP4 (I'd like to get up to 10SP1, but haven't yet)
We had some issues with init scripts starting on 6.0, but with 6.5 it's
been addressed.
Can you please take me out of the distribution list.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin Piszcz
Sent: Miércoles, 26 de Marzo de 2008 12:31 p.m.
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] bpbackup -f file_list
Dear NetBackup experts,
I am trying to bpduplicate from disk to tape (NetBackup 3.4 Solaris 8)
and getting error 96 - unable to allocate new media for backup.
At the moment the only tape drive is running backup, but I expect the
duplicate to use the same tape.
The backup I am trying to duplicate
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andrey Halezov wrote:
Dear NetBackup experts,
I am trying to bpduplicate from disk to tape (NetBackup 3.4 Solaris 8)
and getting error 96 - unable to allocate new media for backup.
At the moment the only tape drive is running backup, but I expect the
duplicate to use
Justin,
Thank you for your answer.
I have available tapes (I rerun available_media each time
bpduplicate failed ).
xbpmon JobMonitor GUI shows currently running backup job, which
explains why NetBackup can't mount the new tape (I only have one tape
drive). I am trying to understand why backup
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008, Andrey Halezov wrote:
Justin,
Thank you for your answer.
I have available tapes (I rerun available_media each time
bpduplicate failed ).
xbpmon JobMonitor GUI shows currently running backup job, which
explains why NetBackup can't mount the new tape (I only have one
26 matches
Mail list logo
