Thanks for your response and sorry to be so long winded. I think the
utter frustration forced it out of me. LOL! 

What then is the purpose or point of listing more than one snode? I have
discovered that in the case of the primary server -- and this is
probably no surprise, I'm sure -- it will use whichever is listed first
to send the client's index to. So, for example, if a client lists the
following under Storage Nodes field:
snode2
snode1

But the primary server lists:
snode1
snode2

then the client will insist on using snode2 to backup data, and then its
index will go to snode1.
Kind of a hard coded decision here. If I wanna vary it, I have to change
it; otherwise, always the same. Seems weird that NetWorker can't load
balance things or maybe I should say allow for dynamic snode selection.

Seems, therefore, that we have three choices:
1. Hard code the clients that we want to use snode1 versus snode2 and
make sure to have enough of the required pool tapes in both libraries,
assuming we're going to use two snodes and not dedicate any one of them
to a specific pool.

2. Hard code the pools to use certain devices and then which ever
snode's devices are available for the pool then that's the one it will
use. I'm thinking this would work, but does force you to dedicate the
devices to certain pools.

3. Move both libraries to the new storage node rather than having one
library on the old snode and the other on the new snode.

Still seems odd that NetWorker will use dynamic sharing of devices
between libraries on the same snode but not between said devices on
different snodes. Hmm ...

George

> Riaan Louwrens wrote:
> 
> Hi George,
> 
> The way I understand it is that you cannot use two different SN's at
> the same for backup from a single client (even though they are in the
> same pool).
> 
> The client will try and connect to the Storage Node Host (as you know)
> and once that requirement has been met (with the first available one
> going down the list), then that attribute is set, and only that host
> will be used. Meaning, if half way through the tape on that node gets
> full or the device fails (etc), that backup will fail (or will be
> pending).
> 
> So your understanding, is the same as I understand it - as your tests
> would have shown.
> 
> I am not sure if there is another way around it - apart from having to
> manually re-do the storage node affinity list every time you want the
> priority to change.
> 
> Regards,
> Riaan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Legato NetWorker discussion
> [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU]On Behalf Of George Sinclair
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 1:17 AM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: [Networker] Using multiple storage nodes for same client?
> 
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.4 - Release Date: 3/7/05
>

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" command via email
to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list. Questions regarding this list
should be sent to stan AT temple DOT edu
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=