> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU]
> On Behalf Of MIchael Leone
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:38 AM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [Networker] Problems Backing up Windows Cluster
> 
> EMC NetWorker discussion <NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU> wrote on
> 07/22/2008 10:49:44 AM:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: EMC NetWorker discussion
> [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU]
> > > On Behalf Of MIchael Leone
> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:40 AM
> > > To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> > > Subject: Re: [Networker] Problems Backing up Windows Cluster
> > >
> > > EMC NetWorker discussion <NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU> wrote
> > > >
> > > > Our Windows cluster is set up in an active/active mode, single
> > > > virtual node and 2 physical nodes. On the physical nodes only
the
> > > > local drives are backed up. On the virtual node all other
> > > > drives/shares are backed up. (I am a unix admin so my knowledge
of
> > > > windows clusters is sketchy at best)
> > > >
> >
> > Possibly OT, but can you have an actual "active/active" mscs cluster
> > with only one virtual node? (No, I'm not a windows-guy either,
sorry!)
> 
> Don't think so. The whole point of active/active is to have both nodes
> running and processing data at the same time, hence the 2 "virtual
> clients". AFAIK, anyway.
> 

Thanks, I didn't either. I was just wondering if perhaps that is the
OP's problem - he mentions only having a single virtual node on his
active/active above, which struck me as odd to begin with.

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