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 clusters....each 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
