I performed an upgrade from 6.5 to 7.0 on my master
server all went well, I performed an upgrade on 1
media server all went well. Before I could perform
this on the next media server SCACIFS01.domain.com
I started getting NetBackup TLD Control Daemon -
Invalid magic number from client
Wayne
For simplicity, and knowing that you capture everything about a
Windows box, including the System State and Shadow Copy components (ie:
for Windows 2008/2008), it is ideal. It also means all drives on that
box are backed up.
You may have reasons for backing up Windows C: Drive and Shadow
ALD does indeed capture system state / shadow copy components, if the
clients are Windows 2000 and 2003 / 2008, ect. NT of course does not
need these directives.
I know, because I use it all the time. and has been since 5.1
System State is the Registry of Win2k and Shadow Copy is Win2k3+
I am
Wayne
Yes. In essence, if you create a policy with say, the C: Drive for a
Windows 2003 Server, then the C: Drive will get backed up.
However, the critical system / boot files / registry and configuration
information of Shadow Copy Components will NOT be backed up.
Unless you either:
1) Create a
An example of the System Config of a Win2k3 Server, that was used for
ALL LOCAL DRIVES (NOTE: Screenshot I am seinding may not be seen on the
list)
-Original Message-
From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [
mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of
Wayne
This Technote may be worth a read. To get a better understanding :)
It refers to 5.1, but it gives you an idea on what is needed for
successful backups of Windows Machines.
NOTE: Ensure that your Windows boxes are using VSS to do the backups,
and not VSP! Check the settings using
Issue resolved. Even with deleting all drives and robots on master sever and
media servers, then recreating them I still had the issues. Symantec support
had test connectivity and it all seemed to be fine. He then had me run
tpautoconf -a on the failing media server and it started working.
What issues are you seeing with the Quantum in regards to restore?
-Original Message-
From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of mitch808
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 2:51 AM
To: VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject:
Our production Oracle jobs are set to use two 700GB dssu shares in a
Storage Unit. We have our Full schedule set to bypass this and go
straight to tape due to the job being larger than Disk Staging can
handle for Oracle. Is there a fear of shoe shinning here since our
recent migration to LTO4?
Have you thought about using dedupe to reduce the size of the backup to
disk? We do that here with Data Domain then vault that off to tape.
-Original Message-
From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Nate
Sanders
We're still on 5.1mp6 at the time. Dedupe on the Netapp is happening I
believe. Not much we can do on that front right now.
On 06/09/2010 09:46 AM, Lightner, Jeff wrote:
Have you thought about using dedupe to reduce the size of the backup to
disk? We do that here with Data Domain then vault
Hello all,
I've been trying to get vStorage API backups going with Netbackup 7 in
my test environment now, and am running into what I presume are
standard issues for people who've done this with VCB in the past.
Pretty sure I'm getting through those OK.
Getting beyond myself now, as this is a
Shoe shining is less of a problem with modern tape drives, as they have this
speed matching which will slow the tape drive's throughput down to match,
as closely as possibe, the speed that data is coming in from the host...
The IBM LTO-4 drive has the new technology that matches dynamic speed at
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Dean dean.de...@gmail.com wrote:
Shoe shining is less of a problem with modern tape drives, as they have
this speed matching which will slow the tape drive's throughput down to
match, as closely as possibe, the speed that data is coming in from the
host...
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:03:12AM -0500, Ed Wilts wrote:
If you have a NetApp filer (and there may be other NAS heads that have the
same functionality) that have multiple security models on the same data,
this approach simply will not work. We have some file systems that use both
Unix and
On Jun 9, 2010, at 19:27, A Darren Dunham wrote:
NFS cannot carry the NTFS ACLS though. So conceivably you can do all
CIFS backups and get all security structures. (I do NDMP and have
mainly UNIX servers, so it's not something I've tried to test).
Well, NFSv4 does NTFS-style ACLs. See
16 matches
Mail list logo
