We do patches on our Solaris master servers on a semi-annual basis. We
also take advantage of the fact that both our test and production
environments are clustered to minimize the chances that a bad patch will
hose the environment. We use a rolling upgrade method. First, we apply
patches to
Some drives can have the compression turned on by a drive setting so
that it uses compression, regardless. Did any of your drive settings
change?
I agree with a previous poster in that you should do some kind of a test
to determine how much data is being written to a tape before it moves on
DB corruption with 5.1 MP5? I must be living in a shell as I hadn't
heard about that. We're getting ready to install MP5 in a couple of
weeks. Can you elaborate?
Dmitri Smirnov wrote:
Still working on this one ... Overall impression - not worth it - too
many changes, too many bugs,
I've used (from memory) something like
vmglob -delete -devhost media-server-name
This removed everything from the global device database for that media
server...robotic defs as well as drives.
Paul Keating wrote:
Yeah, that's what I'd been trying to do, but after trying to delete the
device
Something else to bear in mind: Unless things have changed recently,
and I have an email from Veritas to support this, SSO licenses are
licensed per drive. If you have 5 drives that you are sharing, you need
5 SSO licenses.
If this is not, in fact, the case, I'll need to find new Veritas
drive SHARED DRIVE license.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack
Forester, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 12:16 PM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] SSO Options
Something else to bear in mind: Unless things
I'm trying to decide whether to go with MP5, but after reading about one
person's possible catalog corruption after installing it, I'm a little
leery. Has anyone else experienced any problems after Installing MP5,
or is this catalog corruption thing likely an isolated incident? I know
to do
Bobby,
I'm running clustered master servers just as you describe, and according
to our Symantec rep, you do not need SSO licenses for your clustered
master servers. However, if those same drives are shared with other
media servers, then the answer becomes yes, you do need SSO licenses.
We've got a bunch of 9940B drives and use 262144 for SIZE_DATA BUFFERS.
Performance is very good. When we eval'd the drives a couple of years
ago, I saw peak performance of 65MB/sec on really compressible data.
Our numbers vary widely depending on the nature of the data being backed
up.
This isn't something I've seen discussed here in recent memory, but it's
something we're working on right now. The new Daylight Saving Time
rules for the US take effect this year and we're wondering if anybody
has investigated the impact to NetBackup. We've been testing our OS
patches and
PROTECTED]
01/10/2007 12:44 PM
To
Jack Forester, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED], Veritas List
veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
cc
Subject
Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup and New Daylight Saving Time Rules
HP when it sent notification for the OS patches also sent notification
for the need to update Java
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack
Forester, Jr.
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:03 PM
To: Veritas List
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup and New Daylight Saving Time Rules
I guess I didn't phrase my question very well, as we are testing the
Java update as well. I
I'll also add that the upgrade from 4.5 to 5.1 - especially if your
master server is clustered - is not a simple, straightforward upgrade,
either. But the upgrade to 6.0 sounds like it will be more
challenging. We're preparing for a 5.1 - 6.0 upgrade here.
Justin Piszcz wrote:
I would read
We've been running 9940B drives for nearly 3 years now, and I've never
heard of a table of addresses to control access to the drive. I've been
through the menus on the drive and looked through the drive manual and
never saw a reference to such a feature. Are you having a problem at
this
14 matches
Mail list logo
