Hi
I just figured this out this morning... I did another backup last night of the
same box and I was unable to see it this morning for a restore.
I then noticed that I had actually set the policy to be a standard policy
rather than a windows policy... as soon as I swithced, I was able to see
Is starting to hate 6.5.1:
New bad way of allocation tape drives, certain drive for a job not
just the drive that gets free, gave a lot of status 196
Dosn't reflect changes made to to policies/schedule, just had a lot of
errors because NBU start non-existing schedules
None of the 2007 agents seems
Yes you never want to do that.
Standard = for UNIX only.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, lottojam wrote:
Hi
I just figured this out this morning... I did another backup last night of
the same box and I was unable to see it this morning for a restore.
I then noticed that I had actually set the
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yes you never want to do that.
Standard = for UNIX only.
VMS also uses the Standard policy type.
In general, though, you *MUST* back up Windows data with the Windows policy
type. Veritas put it in there for a good
I believe the restore will work as long as you don't need the registry stuff,
but I would certainly change the policy ASAP.
my £.02 worth.
Regards
Patrick
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes you never want to do that.
Standard = for UNIX only.
VMS
Hello.
When I run a backup job, I get a (41) network connection timed out
error.
The backup job triggers a bpstart_notify.$Policy_Name script. In this
script, I have a
sleep 900
statement. So that this doesn't cause any problems, I increased the
BPSTART_TIMEOUT in
Have you verified your NIC settings from the client to the switch? In our
environment the GigE are autonegotiate, 100MB are full Duplex no auto
negotiate.
A mismatch between the Cleint's NIC and the switch can cause problems.
=
Carl Stehman
IT Distributed Services
I am only seeing 8-10MiB/s directly from RAM (/dev/shm) where if I write
the same data to an LTO-3, I see regular speeds, 60-90MiB/s no problems?
___
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Having just gone through that (Albiet with Qlogic) this is what I did:
Make sure the st driver is set to a reasonable buffer size (I did this in
/etc/modprobe.conf):
options st buffer_kbs=1024
echo 1048576 /usr/openv/netbackup/db/config/SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS
echo 1048576
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Justin Piszcz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I am only seeing 8-10MiB/s directly from RAM (/dev/shm) where if I write
the same data to an LTO-3, I see regular speeds, 60-90MiB/s no problems?
What happens if you don't use NetBackup and use native tar to go directly
Christopher,
No NDMP backups cannot be multiplexed no matter where the tape side of
the backup exists. This is a limitation of NDMP.
Multi-streaming is possible with NDMP backups just not Multiplexing.
Thanks
Mike Heck
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:18:45 -0700
From: Costa, Christopher [EMAIL
Yeah yeah that was it I figured it after I sent the e-mail I was in a rush
to get these new serves up and forgot about the SIZE_* vars, getting
100MiB/s per tape drive now no problems.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Jason Slagle wrote:
Having just gone through that (Albiet with Qlogic) this is what I
Thanks btw ;)
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Yeah yeah that was it I figured it after I sent the e-mail I was in a rush to
get these new serves up and forgot about the SIZE_* vars, getting 100MiB/s
per tape drive now no problems.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Jason Slagle wrote:
We recently purchased a VTL to backup some short retention backups to.
The backups will expire on the VTL and will not be duplicated to tape
or anywhere else for that matter. We also have capacity licensing so
we can create as many virtual tape drives as necessary. I don't
believe multiplexing
Dear Gurus,
What is the best setup for NetBackup in 2 sites across the WAN link?
I will have a tape library on each site.
- Should I purchase 2 NetBackup servers and manage them separately?
- Is it better (or cheaper) to purchase NetBackup server for a primary
site and media manager for the
Did you try to use the Virtual Center instead ESX hosts?
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 1:16 PM, David Attreed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
First post so be gentle. Am testing out VCB backups with NBU 6.5 which
work absolutely fine. However, when we VMotion the host to a different ESX,
NetBackup does
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy wrote:
Dear Gurus,
What is the best setup for NetBackup in 2 sites across the WAN link?
I will have a tape library on each site.
- Should I purchase 2 NetBackup servers and manage them separately?
- Is it better (or cheaper) to purchase
Based on what you describe, it seems you only want to backup servers in a
remote site but are not looking for a DR solution. It would be far
cheaper to have a single master server and a media server in the remote
site. This obviously keeps the license costs down and centralizes the
management.
Will a Netbackup 6.5 Master\Media server backup Windows NT clients?
Jason Leidy
Con-way Enterprise Services
Windows Server Group
503-450-3958
___
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
yes what levels of windows are you looking at
You can go to support.veritas.com and check for levels supported.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Leidy, Jason D
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 5:05 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu]
Btw there was a good HP doc, 32 for the NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS and 256k for
the SIZE_DATA_BUFFERS is the best.
32 (48) was not any better, but 32 16 was a definite gain in
performance.
Justin.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Jason Slagle wrote:
Having just gone through that (Albiet with Qlogic) this
Also for net_buffer_sz I use 1megabyte..
Also the one everyone forgets:
NUMBER_DATA_BUFFERS_RESTORE
This definitely can speed up restores as well I use 32 for that too)
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, Jason Slagle wrote:
Having just gone through that (Albiet with Qlogic) this is what I did:
Make sure
Well if money is no object and you really want a DR solution then the best
in my humble opinion is to have a dual node VCS global HA/DR cluster
between the two sites and configure NBU as a cluster resource. This also
assumes you have libraries and or storage devices with like media drives
so
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Haskins, Steve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I understood that with version 6.# Windows NT 4.0 would not be supported
and migrated the few we have remaining to another backup product before
migrating to 6.5. I wasn't brave enough to test them with 6.5.
We've
The only downside to not multiplexing is the number of drives you have
to create and configure as well as the number of virtual media you have
to create as well. Depending on the VTL, media can be created by
allocating all the virtual cart space up front of allocating space on
demand. So, if you
- Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20080430/
2dfa848a/attachment.htm
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Mike Sparkes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
if you ever move
to de-duplication, the act of multiplexing your backups ruins the
ability to detect duplicate blocks. Your de-dupe ratio will be terrible.
I don't follow your logic here. Why would multiplexing affect
We recently purchased a VTL to backup some short retention backups to.
The backups will expire on the VTL and will not be duplicated to tape
or anywhere else for that matter. We also have capacity licensing so
we can create as many virtual tape drives as necessary. I don't
believe
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of bob944
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:36 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Multiplexing on VTL's
Good reason #1: in my VTL testing experience, making a boatload of
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Mike Sparkes [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Multiplexing mixes streams of data from multiple sources into one stream
to the storage device. A de-duplication product on that storage device will
be breaking up the stream into blocks and looking for duplicate blocks.
When I purchased 6.0 licenses about a year ago Master and Media server
licenses were the same cost. I don't see how a Master / Media is any
cheaper than a Master / Master unless you've got a software add-on that
licenses per Master. I agree with Justin on this one. Unless your WAN
is 100%
smaller tapes. And a backup that requires a dozen tapes
because they're only 10GB-sized incurs a significant time
penalty from all those media change times.
===
Speaking only for my NetApp VTLs here, but the 'media change
time' as in 'rewind, unload drive, put tape in slot, grab a
Hello Bob
I agree with b and c, but there a can be a little misleading as we learned the
hard way this past year.
Netbackup records the start of a fragment and not the location of the file on
the tape. So it has to read the whole fragment until it finds the file it is
looking for.
len
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What is the best setup for NetBackup in 2 sites across the WAN link?
I will have a tape library on each site.
- Should I purchase 2 NetBackup servers and manage them separately?
- Is it better (or cheaper)
34 matches
Mail list logo
