[Veritas-bu] RE: [Veritas-bu]Status 71...was: Volume Pools [recommendations please]
I don't know why you're getting that error, but it must be specific to the raw backups. In my environment, I have several clusterseach has a shared data drive, and each has a system particion and a couple others. Example Cluster_node_1: / /u /node1 Cluster_node_2: / /u /node2 There's a policy that backs up cluster /data, which is the shared resource, backed up via a virtual name/IP, but I have another policy that backs up the physical nodes. The backup selections list has the following: / /u /node1 /node2 The client list has: Cluster_node_1 Cluster_node_2 There are no exclude lists on either node... /node1 gets backed up on the node1 backup, and /node2 gets backed up on the node2 backup. Never get a 71. Works a charm...so I would venture to guess it's either specific to the raw backup, or it doesn't like that you've specified and exclude list for a fs that doesn't exist. Paul -- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Markham Sent: April 27, 2006 5:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please] Now can someone answer me what happens if you have a 2 clients in a policy which has 2 streams as follows :- NEW_STREAM /data /u01 /u02 NEW_STREAM /devices/something/[EMAIL PROTECTED],raw /devices/something/[EMAIL PROTECTED],raw /devices/something/[EMAIL PROTECTED],raw /devices/something/[EMAIL PROTECTED],raw both clients have the directories /data etc (the file system stuff) and only one client has the raw partitions vvisible. They are both in the same policy as i want them to write to the same tapes and have the same retention. I have an exclude_list.policy on the client without the raw partitions containing the raw partitions yet i get a backup exit status of 71 for this client which is none of files in file list exist. I know this is because the new_stream will create a new job for that client but why is the exclude list not being used or is it and its just no other files are in the list so it exits with 71? La version française suit le texte anglais. This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
Re: [Veritas-bu] RE: [Veritas-bu]Status 71...was: Volume Pools [recommendations please]
Yeah i had come to that conclusion myself. The only worrying thing was i didn't want to leave it to chance that the raw partitions wouldn't appear on the client which didn't normally have them. Its all san storage connected see and if someone adds a new volume to the client with the same device path ( i know doubtful ) it may be being backed up when i dont need it to be on that client. Think ill leave the exclude list in place and put a known good small file in the stream which contains the raw stuff. Thanks for this. Dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK - I just tested this. I built a policy with two NEW_STREAM directives, one stream with a real file, the other with a dummy file. I ran the policy and got an error 71 on the stream with the dummy file. No surprise there. I then excluded the dummy file using an exclude_list.policy file and ran the backup again. The stream with the dummy file still issued a 71. So - even if you exclude the entire contents of the stream in the exclude file, you still get an error 71 when you attempt it. I, frankly, expected this given how Netbackup implements the exclusion list (it scans for the specified directories files first, then applies the exclusions). I'd suggest what I suggested before, add a single dependable file, like /etc/passwd, to the stream with the raw devices in it so it always has one valid file, the others that are missing won't matter then. You won't even need the exclusion list if those raw devices don't exist on that server. -M -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Keating Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:23 AM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] RE: [Veritas-bu]Status 71...was: Volume Pools [recommendations please] I don't know why you're getting that error, but it must be specific to the raw backups. In my environment, I have several clusterseach has a shared data drive, and each has a system particion and a couple others. Example Cluster_node_1: / /u /node1 Cluster_node_2: / /u /node2 There's a policy that backs up cluster /data, which is the shared resource, backed up via a virtual name/IP, but I have another policy that backs up the physical nodes. The backup selections list has the following: / /u /node1 /node2 The client list has: Cluster_node_1 Cluster_node_2 There are no exclude lists on either node... /node1 gets backed up on the node1 backup, and /node2 gets backed up on the node2 backup. Never get a 71. Works a charm...so I would venture to guess it's either specific to the raw backup, or it doesn't like that you've specified and exclude list for a fs that doesn't exist. Paul ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
