We also list the specific save sets, but I would prefer to have a save
set of "All".

Doesn't NetWorker complain when it tries to back up the volumes housing
Exchange when you use "All" instead of listing the non-Exchange portions
of the server?

Thanks.
Teresa

-----Original Message-----
From: Legato NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU]
On Behalf Of Neild, Jim
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 5:15 PM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Backup Exchange and filesystem at same time in
same group?

I recall similar issues and have listed the system state and local OS
drives in one client def and then the exchange backup in another.

Procedures dictate that if there is a change to the box, the backup
admins must know.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers,
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Legato NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU]
On Behalf Of Brian O'Neill
Sent: April 19, 2005 5:00 PM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Backup Exchange and filesystem at same time in
same group?


I sent this on the weekend, so I don't know if it was missed...anyone 
have any ideas? I've got to add two more storage nodes this week...


Brian O'Neill wrote:
> I've got two dedicated storage nodes running Exchange that share two
> tape drives with the Networker server via Dynamic Drive Sharing.
> 
> Right now for efficiency I dedicate one tape drive to each node, and
> back up their filesystems at the same time, then later do the same for

> Exchange, since I have to have two client entries for each.
> 
> I'd like to actually back up one node - both filesystem and Exchange -
> at once and let it make use of both drives for efficiency, then I can 
> schedule the backups of each node at different times.
> 
> Networker seems to insist that client entries "with the same name" 
> (i.e.
> same actual host) cannot exist in the same group if one of the entries

> back up filesystem "All". I'd rather not explicitly list filesystems 
> since I don't know when they'll change (I don't admin the actual
system).
> 
> Is there another way around it? Do I have to create two groups for 
> each
> node, and just schedule them at the same time? Or should I leave it
the 
> way it is?
> 
> I have to add two more storage nodes soon, so I'm looking for an
> efficient and uncomplicated setup (will be handing this over to the 
> client at some point).
> 
> -Brian
> 
> --
> 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
> =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
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
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
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
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
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
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=