|
Re: [Networker] Do Clients have to be in DNS to work ?
2007-07-25 12:05:45
In regard to: [Networker] Do Clients have to be in DNS to work ?, Goslin,...:
I'm having a problem getting two new Windows clients to backup/probe
(probe results below). Is it a requirement that all Networker clients be
defined in DNS to some capacity ? These two clients are not in our DNS,
they are located in our DMZ and we are reaching them via their IP
addresses only. Our firewall rules for Networker clients allow
everything needed for backups to work with all DMZ clients, but those
are also in our DNS, unlike these two. Will we have to add these 2
clients to our DNS also to get them to even probe successfully ?
You don't say what version of the server you're using or what platform
it's on. That's often relevant information. It appears that your
NetWorker server is windows-based, so some of my comments may not apply
(I'm used to using a UNIX or Linux NetWorker server).
Even if you use the IP address to define the client (which I would not
have done), NetWorker is going to try and map that IP to a hostname. For
your version of NetWorker, it's just a warning that it can't do that
lookup. If you want it to go away, add entries to the Windows equivalent
of the /etc/hosts file, and make the Windows DNS resolver look there. You
indicated in a subsequent email that you've done that, but this output
doesn't agree.
Still, that's not the problem. It looks to me like the "No route to host"
is the problem. If this were a UNIX server with UNIX clients, I would
- make sure I can ping the client from the server
- make sure that I can run "rpcinfo -p client_name_or_ip" from the server,
and get back at least:
program vers proto port
100000 2 tcp 7938 portmapper
100000 2 udp 7938 portmapper
390113 1 tcp 7937 nsrexec
- make sure that
arp -a | egrep client_name_or_ip
returns something.
I would also do the same steps from the client to the server (the rpcinfo
output should be more lengthy because the server is running additional
RPC-based services). These should all work, otherwise NetWorker
isn't likely to work.
Are the other clients that you mention in the DMZ that are working
also 192.168.* addresses? I ask because it seems like this is a routing
issue, but if they also have 192.168.* addresses and they're working, I'm
puzzled about what the issue might be.
Tim
Regards
Paul
---------------------------------- Probe Results --------------
C:\Documents and Settings\user>savegrp -p -vv CorpGenTemp
07/24/07 12:22:20 savegrp: Diagnostic: Reverse DNS lookup failed for
host 192.16
8.1.172, address 192.168.1.172
192.168.1.172:All level=incr
192.168.1.170:All level=incr
07/24/07 12:22:20 savegrp: Run up to 12 clients in parallel
07/24/07 12:22:20 savegrp: 192.168.1.172:probe
started
savefs -s backupserver.domain.com -c 192.168.1.172 -g CorpGenTemp -p -o
VSS:*=
off -l full -R -v
07/24/07 12:22:20 savegrp: 192.168.1.170:probe
started
savefs -s backupserver.domain.com -c 192.168.1.170 -g CorpGenTemp -p -o
VSS:*=off -l full -R -v
07/24/07 12:25:09 savegrp: command 'savefs -s backupserver.domain.com -c
192.168.1.170 -g CorpGenTemp -p -o VSS:*=off -l full -R -v ' for client
192.168.1.170
exited with return code 1.
07/24/07 12:25:09 savegrp: 192.168.1.170:probe succeeded.
* 192.168.1.170:All rcmd 192.168.1.170, user root: `savefs -s
backupserver.domain.com -c 192.168.1.170 -g CorpGenTemp -p -o VSS:*=off
-l full -R -v'
* 192.168.1.170:All 07/24/07 12:24:48 nsrexec: nsrexecd on 192.168.1.170
is unavailable. Using rsh instead.
192.168.1.170: No route to host
* 192.168.1.170:All 07/24/07 12:25:09 nsrexec: SYSTEM error: No route to
host
07/24/07 12:25:13 savegrp: command 'savefs -s backupserver.domain.com -c
192.168.1.172 -g CorpGenTemp -p -o VSS:*=off -l full -R -v ' for client
192.168.1.172
exited with return code 1.
07/24/07 12:25:13 savegrp: 192.168.1.172:probe succeeded.
* 192.168.1.172:All rcmd 192.168.1.172, user root: `savefs -s
backupserver.domain.com -c 192.168.1.172 -g CorpGenTemp -p -o VSS:*=off
-l full -R -v'
* 192.168.1.172:All 07/24/07 12:24:52 nsrexec: nsrexecd on 192.168.1.172
is unavailable. Using rsh instead.
* 192.168.1.172:All 07/24/07 12:22:24 nsrexec: Diagnostic: Reverse DNS
lookup failed for host 192.168.1.172, address 192.168.1.172
192.168.1.172: No route to host
* 192.168.1.172:All 07/24/07 12:25:13 nsrexec: SYSTEM error: No route to
host
--- Probe Summary ---
192.168.1.170:All level=full, dn=-1, mx=0,
vers=unknown, p=1
192.168.1.170:All level=full, pool=CorpGenOffsite, save as of Tue
Jul 24 1
2:25:13 GMT-0400 PM 2
192.168.1.170:index level=full, dn=-1, mx=0,
vers=unknown, p=1
192.168.1.170:index level=full, pool=CorpGenOffsite, save as of Tue
Jul 24 1
2:25:13 GMT-0400 PM 2
192.168.1.172:All level=full, dn=-1, mx=0,
vers=unknown, p=1
192.168.1.172:All level=full, pool=CorpGenOffsite, save as of Tue
Jul 24 1
2:25:13 GMT-0400 PM 2
192.168.1.172:index level=full, dn=-1, mx=0,
vers=unknown, p=1
192.168.1.172:index level=full, pool=CorpGenOffsite, save as of Tue
Jul 24 1
2:25:13 GMT-0400 PM 2
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and type
"signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to networker-request
AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this list. You can access the
archives at http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
--
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney AT ndsu DOT edu
Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and type
"signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to networker-request
AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this list. You can access the
archives at http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
|
|
|
