On point 1, you should do exactly what Darren has already suggested: burn some 
extra retention level slots (I encourage you not to change the ones at 9 or 
below) on multiple copies of the same actual time of retention. Unless you 
change the default configuration (and please, don't), NetBackup will refuse to 
colocate images from different retention levels (note: not necessarily 
different durations of retention) on the same media.

On point 2, I think that your understanding of how NetBackup deals with media 
servers' media is slightly off. Creating a pool for each media server certainly 
does segregate the media that server will use, but it doesn't buy you anything. 
If a tape a media server has previously used is currently mounted by another 
media server (which it still could be even with your pool configuration if, for 
example, you're making use of Vault duplication or Storage Lifecycle Policies), 
the first media server will simply pull a new one out of the Scratch pool, and 
backups will proceed at the same speed. Have you found some problem with this 
that I'm missing?


--
gabriel rosenkoetter
Radian Group Inc, Senior Systems Engineer
gabriel.rosenkoetter AT radian DOT biz, 215 231 1556


-----Original Message-----
From: erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT com [mailto:erik.robertello AT 
firstinvestors DOT com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:52 AM
To: ddunham AT taos DOT com; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Cc: minhaj.hussain AT firstinvestors DOT com
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools

We are using approx 15 volume pools for several reasons.

Having many pools allows us to restore different pools simultaneously at our DR 
facility, getting the maximum results within our window.

This is also the case for backing up the data.  Different media servers having 
their own pools is really efficient.  We have a specific backup window that 
might be hard to accomplish without using pools.

We would like to utilize KMS but we have learned that we are limited to 2 pools.

We are currently running 6.5.2 and will be upgrading to 6.5.3.

Really appreciate any suggestions.
Erik



-----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 A Darren
Dunham
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:09 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools


On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:37:05AM -0500, erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT 
com wrote:
> My previous post should have read:
>
> I am looking to eliminate volume pools in an effort to utilized
> hardware encryption (limited to 2 volume pools).  Is there another way
> to experience the same results of using volume pools "without" using
> volume pools?

I guess that depends on what you're using volume pools for in the first
place.  What do you lose in your environment by removing them?

The main purpose behind them is volume segregation.  Easily preventing
certain data from being on the same volume as other data.  Ease of
reporting/identification is a plus as well.  Depending why you're doing
these (and the particulars), you might be able to come up with
alternatives.

Creative use of different retention policies (which use separate tapes
by default) and scripting for identification can help.

--
Darren
_______________________________________________
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