Yes, that is the way NB says they should be backed up.
I had to work this out on 3.5, they had a doc that explained it.

I have policies that backup physical server to get C:\ and Shadow copy 
components
Then I have policies that backup via the virtual name to get the resources.

So with two physical servers
One policy to get C and SCC

One policy to get the resources of the first virtual name
One policy to get the resource of the second virtual name.

You could also do this in one policy if you wanted to work with the exclude 
list for each server.

-----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 Costa
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:54 AM
To: VERITAS-BU AT MAILMAN.ENG.AUBURN DOT EDU
Subject: [Veritas-bu] NBU 6.5 and MSCS Cluster


We have a 3-node MSCS Cluster and at any given moment the 9 shares that the 
cluster is presenting can be located across the 3-nodes. Meaning that drives F, 
G, and H can be on node-1, drives I, J and K on node-2, and drives M, N and O 
on node-3.  

My question is if this situation is in place and we create a policy using the 
virtual name that the shares are being presented as will NBU be smart enough to 
backup these drives from these 3-nodes under the single virtual name?

Thank You in advance

Chris C

+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by ccosta.ccc AT gmail DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
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