Author: DarkIce <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 04:48:39 -0700
Thanks for the responses. There exist on a client a daemon.raw that is over 2GB big and it's on a windows client. Do you know if we can set a limit for that file on a windows client? +-- +--
Author: bingo <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 09:41:14 -0700
Of course the daemon.raw on the client just remains pretty small. However, on the NW server it can easily grow by several MB/day - even some hundred MB/day. Our NW 8.0 server had a 1.8GB file last we
Author: "Stanley R. Horwitz" <stan AT TEMPLE DOT EDU>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 15:03:59 +0000
The daemon.raw file turns over each time NetWorker is restarted, but even over time, that log file rarely grows larger then a few MB because all it typically shows on clients is when NetWorkers proce
Author: "Stanley R. Horwitz" <stan AT TEMPLE DOT EDU>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 14:05:30 +0000
On Sept. 13, I posted a message about changing the name, email address, and topic scope of that list. I am going to make that change momentarily. I will post another message when the change is comple
Author: Vishal Gupta <vvishalgupta AT GMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 21:05:59 +0530
Hi Guys, Brainstorming various possible config. with the following; Your inputs are welcome please: - NW 8.1 (WIN 2008) - DD 890 - Daily incr (30TB) - Weekly full (140TB) Primary Plan: The data will
Author: "Stanley R. Horwitz" <stan AT TEMPLE DOT EDU>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 15:50:39 +0000
Vishal, I manage a similar configuration, but with NetWorker 7.6.4 and a DD860 and DDBoost. The NetWorker server involved here runs on a 64-bit Linux host, not Windows 2008. I also stagger full backu
Author: Roger Morris <roger.in.eugene AT GMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:12:40 -0700
We have networker 7.6.2 on RHEL with a quantum px502. Looking to update the system with a multi drive jukebox, possibly the Quantum i40 system. We have Ultrium-3 tapes right now, but plan on moving t
Author: "Stanley R. Horwitz" <stan AT TEMPLE DOT EDU>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 17:31:56 +0000
Roger, NetWorker can certainly write data to multiple tape drives simultaneously. You have some control over this, but usually, each group will write to a different drive, providing one is available.
I would prefer *not* to assign tapes to drives. With our current system, I just check to be sure sufficient recyclable tapes are available for each pool. I'd rather not have to juggle pools for speci
In regard to: [Networker] Moving to a multi tape drive system, Roger Morris...: We have networker 7.6.2 on RHEL with a quantum px502. Looking to update the system with a multi drive jukebox, possibly
Author: Mathew Harvest <Mathew.HARVEST AT COMMUNITIES.QLD.GOV DOT AU>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 23:03:37 +0000
Hey Vishal, We basically do this at the moment and we have issues with our ability to stream data to the tape drives in a timely manner, this is mainly to do with connectivity issues within our envir
Author: MPieper <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 01:10:37 -0700
Sooo, i now have another saveset that i have to recover. The system is stll set up as above: Old NDMP filer does not exist anymore (physically) Old filer is still configured as a client in Networker
Author: bingo <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 04:14:40 -0700
It seems that NW expects the volumes in other devices. Most likely your device list for that pool does not fit. The issue is that you can specify pools for certain devices (Media Pools > Selection Cr
What do you mean by "The Tapes containing the saveset are in another Pool." Does that pool exist or not? Remove any tape drives from that pool configuration. Also, in the new filer client configurati
Author: MPieper <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 04:50:41 -0700
The other pool does exist. It does not matter whether the tape drives are selected in that pool or not (i tried adding them after i read bingos post), the error does not change. I also have added the
Author: MPieper <networker-forum AT BACKUPCENTRAL DOT COM>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 00:02:35 -0700
That ist the networker server. I have one thing to add of wich i do not know if it may be important. Since my last successful restore, the ip adress of the networker server changed, but the hostname
That could be the problem. If the IP of the server changed the licences may have been disabled. Is that the case? I don't see why nw is complaining about server devices when it shouldn't Ned them for