ACSLS 7.1.0
last patch applied was PTF835586S
two SL8500 libraries
Currently running NB 6.0 MP4 on the two environments that hook into this
ACSLS server, no problems. Heck, even when we were below MP4 I don't
think we had ACSLS problems. =) Very stable application.
- John Nardello
Very nice :)
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Nardello, John wrote:
ACSLS 7.1.0
last patch applied was PTF835586S
two SL8500 libraries
Currently running NB 6.0 MP4 on the two environments that hook into this
ACSLS server, no problems. Heck, even when we were below MP4 I don't
think we had ACSLS
NetBackup 5.1 MP4 master server running on Solaris 9
The server has 3 fiber NICs
If it is possible, how can they be setup for teaming w/NetBackup?
___
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Teaming occurs at layer 2, layer 3 depending on implementation. That's a
negotiation between the NIC and the switch. I don't believe that NBU has
any provision to virtualize or treat two interfaces as one.
Bob Stump wrote:
NetBackup 5.1 MP4 master server running on Solaris 9
The server has 3
Is there a 3rd party solution that is compatible with NetBackup?
Steven L. Sesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/22/2007 12:46 PM
Teaming occurs at layer 2, layer 3 depending on implementation. That's
a negotiation between the NIC and the switch. I don't believe that NBU
has any provision to virtualize
You don't need a 3rd solution, it's handled by the OS and switchthe
app just lives on top of it.
You want to look at Sun Trunking, combined with your switch vendor's
supportie, Cisco Etherchannel.
http://www.sun.com/products/networking/ethernet/suntrunking/faq.xml
--
We traced the problem to an Intel PRO/1000 PT Dual Port Server Adapter
for the new Dell PowerEdge 2950 running Windows 2003. The driver
contained a feature called Receive Side Scaling that disrupts network
communications under certain circumstances. When we disable this
feature, NetBackup was
Max jobs per policy is also a favourite.
--
Jerry Vochteloo
w: +61-2-8220-7043, m: +61 408 206 748
The opinions stated here are mine and do not necessarily represent those
of
Symantec Corp
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Justin
Piszcz
Hello Richard-
When your vault job failed, what was the status code?
I know that there was a problem in 6.0 where the scheduler
was incorrectly restarting a partially successful vault
job, e.g. a vault job that exited with a status 306 because
not all of the images were successfully duplicated.
Hi Rob
Thanks for that, the vault job did indeed return status 306. If the
normal behaviour now is not to retry then I do prefer the bug!
Depending on how you interpret them, the MP4 release notes kind of imply
that they should retry now when they weren't before:-
Etrack Incident = ET630777
Hi,
If I renamed a policy, would the DI backup follow on from last Full (for
the previously named policy) or would it effectively start form the
beginning?
Cheers,
-
Tim Wilkinson
I.T. Support
On 1/22/2007 8:33 PM, Wilkinson, Tim wrote:
If I renamed a policy, would the DI backup follow on from last Full (for
the previously named policy) or would it effectively start form the
beginning?
It would trigger a full. The combination of client name, policy name,
schedule name, and
12 matches
Mail list logo
