Author: "Mark Glazerman" <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:34:00 -0500
Incase anyone is considering implementing any ZFS in their environment which they want to back up using NetBackup we found out yesterday that ALL_LOCAL_DRIVES as the backup selection does NOT cover Z
Author: "Bryan S. Leaman" <leaman AT bitbytes DOT com>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:51:17 -0400
This is fixed in 6.5.2, but the other known problems in that release may prevent you from wanting to upgrade. I've tested it and it works. From the release notes: Etrack Incident = ET1167175 Associat
Author: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz AT lucidpixels DOT com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
Very good information and posts like these should be added to an FAQ if one exists somewhere. _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DO
Author: "Mark Glazerman" <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:11:12 -0500
Bryan, Thanks for that info. I wonder why the Symantec support rep I talked with yesterday made it sound like there were no plans to support ZFS filesystem backups in future releases unless a lot mor
Author: "Mark Glazerman" <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:20:04 -0500
Yes we are using multiple data. I agree that making it one big job would probably put an end to the 71's, we just don't want to have to wait for all the mountpoints to back up sequentially. Mark Glaz
Author: Dave Markham <dave.markham AT fjserv DOT net>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 16:14:15 +0100
Am i right in assuming you are using multiple data streams? Only reason i ask if if you are not, as long as one of the directories exist on at least one of the servers then you shouldn't get a status
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Mark Glazerman <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com> wrote: Thanks for that info. I wonder why the Symantec support rep I talked with yesterday made it sound like there
Author: "Mark Glazerman" <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com>
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 11:24:41 -0500
Ed, I’ve actually had a guy at Symantec contact me through the mailing list and say that there are binaries available which should resolve this issue. I’m beginning to think that the supp
Author: Marion Hakanson <hakansom AT ohsu DOT edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 12:10:30 -0700
Hmm, what version are you running? We're at 6.0MP4, and we have a number of policies backing up systems with ZFS, using ALL_LOCAL_DRIVES, and the ZFS filesystems are indeed being backed up. I just re
Author: mdglazerman <netbackup-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>
Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 21:43:43 -0400
Marion, We are running ZFS on NBU 6.5.1. We had some of the ZFS stuff in place prior to our move from 6.0MP4 so maybe it was working until we upgraded in May. However, The retention policies on all o
Author: "Mark Glazerman" <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 07:52:38 -0500
Domink, The problem with exclude lists is that if you start having a different exclude list for each server, it quickly becomes a nightmare keeping those lists current and up to date. Also, because A
Author: "Jeff Lightner" <jlightner AT water DOT com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:46:27 -0400
In general exclude lists work for directories as well as files so I’m not sure why you stated they don’t work for the former. From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu [mailt
Author: "Mark Glazerman" <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 08:53:15 -0500
Jeff, I didn’t say that Exclude lists don’t work for directories. I said that Include lists don’t work for directories. We have Exclude lists in place on each server so that the fil
Author: "Weber, Philip" <Philip.Weber AT egg DOT com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:21:52 +0100
Urgh. He's right, at least we are seeing this as well. FWIW our zfs filesystems backed up fine when we were running NetBackup version 5.1. Our Advanced Client setup has been broken since we upgraded
Author: "Jeff Lightner" <jlightner AT water DOT com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:21:42 -0400
My apologies. You mentioned exclude lists multiple times so I guess my brain interpreted the final sentence as exclude rather than include. From: Mark Glazerman [mailto:Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT
Catching up on mail; apologies if these bits have already been addressed. As others have pointed out, 6.5.2 has the fix for A_L_D and ZFS. I got an engineering binary for bpmount (depends on the Sol
No. Include lists work exactly the same way as exclude lists; directories and/or files are valid. Reference the Veritas NetBackup System Administrator's Guide, Vol I for syntax rules. This misunders
Author: "Mark Glazerman" <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 16:20:10 -0500
Fixed !!... Symantec have outdone themselves (strange to say I know !!). Engineering created two binaries to replace the bpbkar and bpmount files in /usr/openv/netbackup/bin. Once this was done I was
Author: "Weber, Philip" <Philip.Weber AT egg DOT com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:16:14 +0100
Thanks for highlighting this problem to the list, as we for one hadn't even picked up that our zfs filesystems were no longer backing up. We now have the engineering binaries, and our account manager
They heard my message. Whether or not they act on it is now up to them. You may want to ask your account manager to suggest to product management that these technotes be issued in a more timely fash