You can always upgrade by using the update_clients command, check the PDF
unix command reference/documention on how to use this tool.
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Abdul-Sattar.Mohammad AT ubs DOT com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for update , when I remove the package and install the package
> which I have NetBackup-Solaris2.6 4.5FP_9S1443 , this is running okay ,
> Is it okay , but every time we have to remove existed netbackup package
> and then install that one, but is there any solution except this .
> Please advise
>
> Thanks
> Abdul Sattar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Justin Piszcz [mailto:jpiszcz AT lucidpixels DOT com]
> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 7:15 PM
> To: Mohammad, Abdul-Sattar
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 18, Issue 13
>
> Your clients should be the same or as close to the master server
> version, a 4.5 client is not even officially supported using a 6.0x
> master server afaik.
>
> Justin.
>
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Abdul-Sattar.Mohammad AT ubs DOT com wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have Netbackup 6.0MP4 On Solaris 8 and I wants to configure
>> Netbackup for my clients which is running solaris10, when I configure
>> normal way , the backup failling with EC: 58, I saw in Solaris 10 ,
>>
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root bin 20 Oct 5 10:16 openv -> /opt/VRTSnetcl/openv
>>
>> In Solaris 10 coming by default Netbackup installed ,
>>
>> NAME: VERITAS NetBackup 4.5 Client, Patch FP8 for Solaris 10
>>
>> an any one tell me how configure Thanks
>>
>> Warm Regds,
>> Abdul Sattar
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of
>> veritas-bu-request AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:03 AM
>> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Subject: Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 18, Issue 13
>>
>> Send Veritas-bu mailing list submissions to
>> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> veritas-bu-request AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> veritas-bu-owner AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than
>> "Re: Contents of Veritas-bu digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
>> (Edson Noboru Yamada)
>> 2. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
>> (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
>> 3. Re: Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3 LTO3 dr
> ives (50
>> clients) (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
>> 4. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari a
>> (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
>> 5. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
>> (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
>> 6. Re: LTO3 mixed LTO2 drive using LTO2 cartridgeswithACSLS
>> (Boris Kraizman)
>> 7. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solaria s
>> (Boris Kraizman)
>> 8. Re: LotusNotes backup strategy (Boris Kraizman)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:12:37 -0300
>> From: "Edson Noboru Yamada" <enyamada AT gmail DOT com>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solari s
>> To: "Curtis Preston" <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com>
>> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Message-ID:
>> <90f80d730710071512w409048d0p2b400d2a68756b9 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Thanks for correcting me, Curtis.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On 10/6/07, Curtis Preston <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I believe you meant to say that Solaris X86 isn't supported as a
>>> media or master server. It is supported as of NBU 6.5, using Solaris
>>> x86 10 running on AMD64, which is what the V40Z is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> See the following document for clarification:
>>>
>>>
>>>
> http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_Enterpri
>>> se_Server/278064.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> W. Curtis Preston
>>>
>>> Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com
>>>
>>> VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu [mailto:
>>> veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] *On Behalf Of *Edson
> Noboru
>>
>>> Yamada
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:35 AM
>>> *Cc:* veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>>> Solari s
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SUN V40z with SOlaris is not an option for NBU Server, since a media
>>> or master server running under Solaris is not (or, at least, was not)
>>> supported by Veritas.
>>>
>>> Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services,
>>> that is pretty high too (a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every
>>> single time he says "Good morning").
>>>
>>> rgds
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/4/07, *Dominik Pietrzykowski* <
>>> dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Edson,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
>>> out) to an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35%
>>> faster and only a few thousand more.
>>>
>>> We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no
> brainer.
>>> This was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and
>>> Redhat and found Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We
>>> couldn't get plugins for the database we used etc etc. We also found
>>> that filesystem (about 5%) and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was
>>> better on the Solaris x86 system.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
>>> Solaris from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean
>> Linux in general.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but
> when
>>
>>> you look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for,
>>> they are very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't
>>> compare some of the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the
>>> E25K, they are expensive but for large enterprise business critical
>>> Apps I would only use them or a mainframe.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
>>> that hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic.
> We
>>
>>> ended up swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember)
>>> because we couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to
>>> change the parts all the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm
>>> not sure if it's the same in the US or other places ???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the
>>> user base part:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider
>>>> user
>>> base for Solaris.
>>>
>>> I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
>>> lot of people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition
> to
>>
>>> that there would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest
> would
>>
>>> be minorities.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past
>>> in the various places I have worked at.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dominik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
>>> sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
>>> Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client
> and
>>
>>> it works fine.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> *From:* Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
>>> *Sent:* Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
>>> *Cc:* veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>> *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>>> Solaris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I dont think so.
>>>
>>> Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount
>>> of money you can buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more
>>> memory, more CPUs etc) and Linux with a so much better performance.
>>> I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
>>> opinion, of course.
>>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> On 10/4/07, *Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy* < anepomn AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear NetBackup Experts!
>>>
>>> I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I
>> choose?
>>>
>>> Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
>>> think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
>>> base for Solaris.
>>>
>>>
>>> Is this indeed the case?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Aleksandr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071007/
>> 0eea2f0d/attachment.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:47:12 +1000
>> From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solari s
>> To: "Martin, Jonathan" <JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com>,
>> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE372D7 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>>
>> Hi Jonathan,
>>
>>> We're a big Dell shop here in the US and I've got boxes nearing end
> of
>>
>>> life / on their 5th and 6th year of warranty support and Dell has had
>> no
>>> issues getting hardware to me within the support guidelines (4hr or
>> Next
>>> Business.)
>>
>> I don't think they care much about us Aussies !!!! To be honest we're
>> probably a small enterprise market when you compare us to the US.
>>
>> Dom
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin, Jonathan [mailto:JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com]
>> Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:17 PM
>> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solari s
>>
>> We're a big Dell shop here in the US and I've got boxes nearing end of
>> life
>> / on their 5th and 6th year of warranty support and Dell has had no
>> issues
>> getting hardware to me within the support guidelines (4hr or Next
>> Business.)
>> Granted we don't buy extended support for most of our machines / we
> run
>> our
>> own "parts shop" with decommissioned hardware. I'll agree however
> that
>> Sun
>> hardware seems to last forever. I've got several ultra1-2s from 199X
>> still
>> running strong with an occasional disk failure years after their Dell
>> counterparts have had darn near every part swapped.
>>
>> As far as Sun versus Linux, we ported a mission critical application
>> from
>> Sun to Redhat on Dell after running processor comparisons. At the
> time
>> and
>> for the money the current Intel chip was toasting the current Sparc
> from
>> a
>> processing load and financial standpoint. I don't keep up with the
>> current
>> Sparcs and I haven't tested any of the Solaris X86 but I can
> definitely
>> see
>> Sun having turned that around by now.
>>
>> -Jonathan
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu on behalf of Dominik
>> Pietrzykowski
>> Sent: Thu 10/4/2007 10:21 PM
>> To: Edson Noboru Yamada
>> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solari s
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Edson,
>>
>>
>>
>> You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
>> out) to
>> an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35% faster
> and
>> only
>> a few thousand more.
>>
>> We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer.
>> This
>> was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and Redhat and
>> found
>> Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We couldn't get
>> plugins
>> for the database we used etc etc. We also found that filesystem (about
>> 5%)
>> and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was better on the Solaris x86
>> system.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
>>
>>
>>
>> You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
>> Solaris
>> from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean Linux in
>> general.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when
>> you
>> look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for, they
> are
>> very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't compare
> some
>> of
>> the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the E25K, they are
>> expensive
>> but for large enterprise business critical Apps I would only use them
> or
>> a
>> mainframe.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
>> that
>> hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We
> ended
>> up
>> swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember) because we
>> couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to change the parts
>> all
>> the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm not sure if it's the
> same
>> in
>> the US or other places ???
>>
>>
>>
>> Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the
> user
>> base
>> part:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
>> base
>> for Solaris.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
>> lot of
>> people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to that
>> there
>> would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would be
>> minorities.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past
> in
>> the
>> various places I have worked at.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
>> sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
>> Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and
>> it
>> works fine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
>> Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
>> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solaris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I dont think so.
>>
>> Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount
> of
>> money you can
>> buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more memory, more CPUs etc)
>> and
>> Linux with a so much better performance.
>> I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
>> opinion, of course.
>>
>> regards
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/07, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy < anepomn AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear NetBackup Experts!
>>
>> I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I
> choose?
>>
>> Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
>> think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
>> base for Solaris.
>>
>>
>> Is this indeed the case?
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Aleksandr
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> <mailto:Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:48:53 +1000
>> From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3
>> LTO3 dr ives (50 clients)
>> To: Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy <anepomn AT gmail DOT com>,
>> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE372D9 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>>
>>
>> I had one (V440) running 4 x LTO2s and it didn't seem to break a
> sweat.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy [mailto:anepomn AT gmail DOT com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 4:03 AM
>> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3 LTO3
>> drives
>> (50 clients)
>>
>> Dear NetBackup experts!
>>
>> I have to select hardware to run a server with several LTO3 drives.
>> Each LTO3 drive can run up to 288GB/hour uncompressed - I don't
>> believe I can ever get this in a real life.
>>
>> Questions:
>> 1.Should I have each LTO3 on a separate fiber card?
>> 2.Is Sun Fire V440 with 4 CPUs and 4G RAM sufficient?
>>
>> Please share you experience if you can.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Aleksandr
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:29:10 +1000
>> From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solari a
>> To: Jon Bousselot <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com>,
>> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE37306 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
>> Content-Type: text/plain
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>>> Since we can now buy dual processor multi-core servers, that have
>> clock
>>> speeds significantly higher than sparc, we have likely seen the last
>>> sun/sparc media server in our datacenter. Unless I can convince
>>> management that the T2000 is a good idea and a great price, but this
>> one
>>> is going to be a political issue instead of a technical one.
>>
>> It's a shame the Niagara CPU was not built for multi CPU servers. The
>> T2000
>> is fast but in a multi CPU box it would be amazing. That's why SUN is
>> bringing out the ROCK and the Niagara 2 (also known as Huron I believe
>> ?)
>> due this month in Aus. I think you can bank on the Niagara 2 boxes but
>> it's
>> early days for the Rock. The Rock brings big promises and I hope it
>> delivers.
>>
>> SUN certainly did have a low point for a while but I believe they are
>> doing
>> well to get out of it and I am happy with their new products. I am
> also
>> looking forward to playing with their new boxes. I wouldn't give up on
>> them
>> just yet.
>>
>> Dom
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jon Bousselot [mailto:jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 8:24 AM
>> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solaria
>>
>> I have been using NetBackup on Sun/Sparc hardware since version 3.2,
> and
>> a majority of my challenges came from the clients. It got easier when
>> Windows 2000 became the normal windows client, and I started using LTO
>> media. Solaris 9 and 10 have been very stable deployments as well,
> and
>> 10 is supposed to have a faster tcp stack.
>>
>> The x86 systems are clearly faster in GHz compared to current sparc
>> systems, and I think you still pay a premium license to Veritas for
>> using sun/sparc hardware for media servers. Current sun hardware has
>> some impressive internal bandwidth speeds, but this assumes you can
>> effortlessly get the data into the media server and back out to a tape
>> or disk. Internal bandwidth might win in a bake-off if you are trying
>> to see which server can buffer data faster in memory.
>>
>> Over the years, I have appreciated how sun/sparc/solaris systems
> behave
>> like big computers and less like a PC. The newest Dell/Sun x86
> systems
>> have integrated lights out managers, which will let you see the last
>> thing your dying server said before going down, which helps diagnose
>> hardware faults that would otherwise be lost on a headless x86 system
>> running linux.
>>
>> Since we can now buy dual processor multi-core servers, that have
> clock
>> speeds significantly higher than sparc, we have likely seen the last
>> sun/sparc media server in our datacenter. Unless I can convince
>> management that the T2000 is a good idea and a great price, but this
> one
>> is going to be a political issue instead of a technical one.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:34:19 +1000
>> From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solari s
>> To: Edson Noboru Yamada <enyamada AT gmail DOT com>
>> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Message-ID:
>>
>> <A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE3730B AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Edson,
>>
>>
>>
>>> Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services,
>> that
>> is pretty high too
>>> (a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every single time he says "Good
>> morning").
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a good relationship with Sun here and don't find them to be
>> ripping
>> us off.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have Platinum support but only all them in if there's hardware or
>> some
>> other sort of serious issue.
>>
>> Most of them team here is competent enough to fix the other issues on
>> their
>> own. Plus we have an ex-SUN
>>
>> person here who knows how to get a good deal out of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dom
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
>> Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 11:35 PM
>> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solari s
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> SUN V40z with SOlaris is not an option for NBU Server, since a media
> or
>> master server running
>> under Solaris is not (or, at least, was not) supported by Veritas.
>>
>> Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services,
> that
>> is
>> pretty high too
>> (a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every single time he says "Good
>> morning").
>>
>> rgds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/07, Dominik Pietrzykowski < dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au
>> <mailto:dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Edson,
>>
>>
>>
>> You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
>> out) to
>> an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35% faster
> and
>> only
>> a few thousand more.
>>
>> We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer.
>> This
>> was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and Redhat and
>> found
>> Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We couldn't get
>> plugins
>> for the database we used etc etc. We also found that filesystem (about
>> 5%)
>> and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was better on the Solaris x86
>> system.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
>>
>>
>>
>> You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
>> Solaris
>> from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean Linux in
>> general.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when
>> you
>> look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for, they
> are
>> very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't compare
> some
>> of
>> the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the E25K, they are
>> expensive
>> but for large enterprise business critical Apps I would only use them
> or
>> a
>> mainframe.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
>> that
>> hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We
> ended
>> up
>> swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember) because we
>> couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to change the parts
>> all
>> the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm not sure if it's the
> same
>> in
>> the US or other places ???
>>
>>
>>
>> Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the
> user
>> base
>> part:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
>> base
>> for Solaris.
>>
>> I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
>> lot of
>> people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to that
>> there
>> would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would be
>> minorities.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past
> in
>> the
>> various places I have worked at.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Dominik
>>
>>
>>
>> BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
>> sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
>> Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and
>> it
>> works fine.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com
>> <mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com> ]
>> Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
>> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> <mailto:veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solaris
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I dont think so.
>>
>> Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount
> of
>> money you can
>> buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more memory, more CPUs etc)
>> and
>> Linux with a so much better performance.
>> I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
>> opinion, of course.
>>
>> regards
>>
>> On 10/4/07, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy < anepomn AT gmail DOT com
>> <mailto:anepomn AT gmail DOT com> > wrote:
>>
>> Dear NetBackup Experts!
>>
>> I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I
> choose?
>>
>> Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
>> think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
>> base for Solaris.
>>
>>
>> Is this indeed the case?
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Aleksandr
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - <mailto:Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
>> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>> <http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
>> 5a81c439/attachment.htm
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 04:47:45 +0200
>> From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 mixed LTO2 drive using LTO2
>> cartridgeswithACSLS
>> To: "Martin Ruslan" <mit.martin AT gmail DOT com>
>> Cc: Marianne Van Den Berg <mvdberg AT stortech.co DOT za>,
>> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Message-ID:
>> <7454e3bf0710071947r7effaa3dmcd13c97f4650ca3d AT mail.gmail DOT com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> I can proof, I have LTO-3 tape drives configured as hcart2 and use
> them
>> with
>> LTO-2 tape cartridges. I have the second site where just LTO-2 tape
>> drives
>> that is why just LTO-2 tapes for consistency. As soon as I will have a
>> chance to upgrade the second site with LTO-3 drives, I will
> reconfigure
>> the
>> first (not really primary site) site and then just do the backup with
>> LTO-3
>> tape drives and keep old LTO-2 drives for restores from LTO-2 tape
>> media.
>> So, the same what Marianne said. Btw, interesting thing, LTO-3 tape
>> drives
>> seams faster then LTO-2 drives even when you use them with LTO-2 tape
>> media.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Boris
>>
>> On 10/6/07, Martin Ruslan <mit.martin AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yup,
>>> that can be the way.. but they want the ocular proof that LTO3 drives
>> can
>>> read and write the LTO2 media's.
>>>
>>> for all, the library is STK L5500. Is it support for the
> partitioning?
>>> getting more interesting here..
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Martin.
>>>
>>> On 10/3/07, Marianne Van Den Berg <mvdberg AT stortech.co DOT za> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would personally config the drives as hcart2 - easiest way out.
>> When
>>>> you receive your LTO3 media, reconfig your drives as hcart3 and add
>> your
>>>> hcart3 media. Your hcart2 images can be restored using the LTO2
>> drives.
>>>>
>>>> We have a customer doing that - LTO2 & LTO3 all configed as hcart2,
>> all
>>>> using hcart2 media. Backups written on the LTO3 drives using LTO2
>> media can
>>>> be restored on any of the drives.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Marianne *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>>
>>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
>> 5aa3bdd6/attachment.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 04:52:59 +0200
>> From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
>> Solaria s
>> To: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>
>> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> Message-ID:
>> <7454e3bf0710071952h67f2866dy82fef75eb9f79636 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes, as I said. I am a RHCE as well, but I will vote for Solaris with
>> NetBackup. If you have Solaris in place, stick with it further, it is
>> going
>> to be a better choice.
>>
>> On 10/6/07, Ed Wilts <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
>>> opinion, of course.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I disagree. New features have typically been released on Solaris
>> first
>>> with Linux to follow. For example, doing Windows Flash Backups was
>>> initially supported on a Windows master server, then a Solaris master
>>> server, and then eventually a Linux master. In terms of FlashBackup
>>> clients, Linux doesn't support this option until NBU 6.5. Ditto with
>>> Linux ACL support ? that's 6.5 as well. We're doing FlashBackups on
>>> Solaris today but have to wait until we upgrade to 6.5 before our
>> Linux
>>> clients can catch up. Even then, only ext3 support is there ? not
>> even VxFS
>>> on Linux!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you're going to live on the leading edge, then Solaris is
> certainly
>> a
>>> better choice than Linux.
>>>
>>> That said, we have a Solaris master and a Linux master. The Linux
>> master
>>> is in a remote office and is running on an Intel platform where Sun
>> wasn't a
>>> politically acceptable choice. It has not yet caused us any grief
> but
>> the
>>> environment is small enough that just about anything would work.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, we've seen similar cases with Veritas VVR support ? it's
>> **much**
>>> better on Solaris than Linux.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Solaris, at least for a while, will continue to be the enterprise
>> platform
>>> of choice for the majority of customers. I expect this to change
> over
>>> time. I'm a Red Hat Certified Engineer so don't put me in the Linux
>> hater
>>> camp.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ?/Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD
>>>
>>> Mounds View, MN, USA
>>>
>>> mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>>
>>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
>> a95d33e5/attachment.htm
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 05:03:05 +0200
>> From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
>> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LotusNotes backup strategy
>> To: "Jon Bousselot" <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com>
>> Cc: Steve Quan <sq01 AT yorku DOT ca>, veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT
>> edu
>> Message-ID:
>> <7454e3bf0710072003i3497a84tffea6ae748e214a1 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> Yes, it seems I am fine with using regular client agent. On windows it
>> is
>> consistent as it is using VSP or VSS for open files. It worked before
> as
>> well even on Linux. And no problem with restores, just restore the
>> entire
>> nsf files and then either give the access to users thru the Domino
>> links, or
>> merge with the existing mail bags. Notes Admins know how to do it. But
>> just,
>> we have a problem to turn the transaction logs, as we have mail bags
>> with
>> sizes from 1g to 5gig. Then Domino server cannot handle this properly,
>> it
>> looks like our messaging team is going to drop this idea, and we will
>> see
>> how we can implement retention policies using an archiving solution
> for
>> mail. I also agree that database level client (add-on advanced client
>> for
>> Notes) will slow your backup as it will go thru Domino API, and on IBM
>> site,
>> I found a lot of hot fixes just for Symantec/Veritas NetBackup, then
>> again
>> even more considerations. But, it looks like to convert LAN agents to
>> SAN
>> media servers will improve our situation.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Boris
>>
>> On 10/5/07, Jon Bousselot <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com> wrote:
>>>
>>> We use the notes agent, and write about 380GB of data to tape, coming
>>> from two servers. The mailboxes are split by alphabet. Average
>>> throughput to tape is about 8 to 10 MB/sec from each client, and we
> do
>> a
>>> full backup every night. We keep the weekend fulls at a different
>>> retention than the weekdays, and backing up this much data makes a
>>> recovery very simple. I have reviewed the incremental notes backup,
>> and
>>> it appears to only get the transaction logs. We have not tested a
>>> restore from this type of backup, so I don't know how well it works.
>> I
>>> think we might just be lucky so far that we've never needed to roll a
>>> data file forward from logs. Usually we're restoring the entire .nsf
>>> file and letting users attach to the current and previous one to
>> manage
>>> the differences.
>>>
>>> Along with the full .nsf backups for mail, we also get the
> transaction
>>> logs. I don't think I've ever needed to use them.
>>>
>>> -Jon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>>
>>>> We did transaction log bkups until recently, as we were never able
>> to
>>> get
>>>> our "point in time" recoveries to work. I suspect that it's because
>> of
>>> the
>>>> length of time it takes to do the database backup (couple of days
>> for
>>> just
>>>> over 1TB over the LAN). We also multi-streamed the transaction and
>>>> database backups to ensure that the transaction log file(s) would be
>>>> reinitialized.
>>>>
>>>> I'm still VERY interested in seeing how other sites are doing their
>>> Notes
>>>> backups/restores.
>>>>
>>>> /Steve
>>>> ---
>>>> On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Boris Kraizman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Steve,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to get back to this topic. Do you do transaction log
>> backups
>>> using
>>>>>> NBU add-on database agent for Lotus Notes? How it works for you?
>> We
>>> are
>>>>>> still doing file level backups with regular NBU client for
>> Windows. I
>>> was
>>>>>> asked to evaluate transactional log backups as well, we have a
>> few
>>> mail
>>>>>> servers with 0.5TB data on each. We backup them over LAN, I am
>>> thinking to
>>>>>> convert them into SAN media backup servers. Any useful
>> information on
>>> how
>>>>>> you do the backup for Domino environment would be really helpful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I saw Jerry also responded on this topic. Jerry, could you please
>> be
>>> more
>>>>>> detail how you do VSS or I can see you do the array based
>> solution
>>> with
>>>>>> local copy cloning, correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does anybody do transactional log backups for Domino Notes? Any
>> pros
>>> and
>>>>>> cons?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Curtis? maybe you can get back on this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Boris
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/15/07, Steve Quan <sq01 AT yorku DOT ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We've been "wrestling" with this for quite some time, and very
>>> curious to
>>>>>>>> see how other sites are managing their Lotus Notes backups.
>> We're
>>> running
>>>>>>>> NBU6.0 MP4 (servers and clients). The database is just over 1TB
>> and
>>> we do
>>>>>>>> transaction log backups.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> /Steve
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>>
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
>> 7acc246d/attachment.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>>
>> End of Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 18, Issue 13
>> ******************************************
>>
>> UBS is expanding its presence in Singapore. UBS and its group of
>> companies are now operating from its new registered address:
>> One Raffles Quay
>> #50-01 North Tower
>> Singapore 048583
>> UBS Mainline: +65 6495 8000
>>
>> Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com
>>
>> This message contains confidential information and is intended only
>> for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
>> should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
>> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
>> e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>>
>> E-mails are not encrypted and cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
>> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
>> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender
>> therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
>> contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail
> transmission.
>> If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
>> message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
>> construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities
>> or related financial instruments.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>>
>
> UBS is expanding its presence in Singapore. UBS and its group of
> companies are now operating from its new registered address:
> One Raffles Quay
> #50-01 North Tower
> Singapore 048583
> UBS Mainline: +65 6495 8000
>
> Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com
>
> This message contains confidential information and is intended only
> for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
> should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
> notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
> e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
>
> E-mails are not encrypted and cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
> error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
> destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender
> therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
> contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
> If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
> message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
> construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities
> or related financial instruments.
>
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
