Just wondering if the built-in NOM report 'Top 10 Policies Using most
Server Space' is broke for anyone else? It seems like it reports
policies using ITC with twice as much data as it should like it is
counting both streams. NOM and master @ 6.5.3
Geoff Stafford
Barclaycard US
Data
Greetings,
I am pretty sure that a lot of you who are working for big enterprises are
aware of the legal holds and holding even the scratch tapes for the legal
purposes. I have a question related to this. There is a possibility that legal
might come back and ask to hold all tapes including
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM, rvadde
netbackup-fo...@backupcentral.comwrote:
I am pretty sure that a lot of you who are working for big enterprises are
aware of the legal holds and holding even the scratch tapes for the legal
purposes. I have a question related to this. There is a
Hello 6.5 users,
I've have a implementation coming up where I'd like to run the equivalent of a
in-line tape copy or duplicate a tape(s).
I've been fortunate to have the Vault option in doing this but it's use in this
new implementation that won't be applicable in this particular
I'm assuming you want to be able to use the tapes as scratch tapes. If
so then I'd suggest just loading in the drive and doing a simple tar to
the tape - that will overwrite the header information.
Of course if you KNOW that there is a possibility legal might NEED
these tapes for litigation
Your email address ends with a company that's in the hot seat right now
so personally if I were in your shoes I wouldn't do anything until a
lawyer told you to. Destruction of evidence is punishable by prison.
Not nice white collar prison either, but pound you in the ass prison.
(I hope somebody
Encryption works great for the physical media. But for Virtual Tapes or the
Deduped Tapes, encryption is not recommended. I think the way dedup works is
once Netbackup relabels the tape, the pointers to the data from the tape are
lost. Is this true ?
Thanks
ewilts wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16,
Try label or quick erase.
-Original Message-
From: rvadde netbackup-fo...@backupcentral.com
Sent: 16 January 2009 18:50
To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Making Expired Netbackup Tapes Unreadable
Greetings,
I am pretty sure
I meant to say do NOT really rather than do really.
By the way this is all my opinion. I'm not a lawyer so follow the
advice at your own risk.
-Original Message-
From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Jeff
Lightner
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:03:39AM -0700, Scott Jacobson wrote:
Hello 6.5 users,
I've have a implementation coming up where I'd like to run the equivalent of
a in-line tape copy or duplicate a tape(s).
I've been fortunate to have the Vault option in doing this but it's use in
this new
AFAIK - Here is the key - You need to insure whatever action you take is in
line with EXISTING retention policy and is NOT being done in light of some
legal action that is pending.
You MUST have a retention policy.
If your retention policy says you keep it for X days, then scratch the tapes,
I've often wondered about requesting an enhancement for a NetBackup
option - Expire with prejudice - just for these situations. Something
you could set on a global, pool or retention level basis...
Greetings,
I am pretty sure that a lot of you who are working for big enterprises are
aware
Environment: Linux, NBU 6.5.2a
In an environment with HP LTO II's, I've been using for some time and with good
results:
NET_BUFFER_SZ (65536)
SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS (262144)
NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS (32)
My question is has anyone seen the need, or any performance improvement by
changing these
In your policy did you check the Snapshot option down below?
+--
|This was sent by benjamin.schm...@baesystems.com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com.
14 matches
Mail list logo
