Srii
To direct your backups to certain storage nodes, you need to use the 'storage
node' field in the client configuration and list only the storage nodes you
want the clients to backup to. This is the same for the clone storage node
fields.
HTH
Ken Ciolek
Solutions Architect
EMC BRS (Backup Recovery Systems)
EMC2
2 Penn Plaza, New York, NY
Manhattan, NY 10121
mobile: 201-983-1537
eFax: 201-603-1162
-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of Sree
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 11:08 AM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] How to Direct big clients to back up to big/preferred
Networker storage node
Folks:
Networker 7.6.1; Windows 2008 x64
We have a 3 node Networker Backup configuration -- two larger nodes will have
10 Gbps, while third node will only have 1 Gbps (teamed);
Two of these larger storage nodes will not only have 10 Gbps - but will have
access to larger and faster NAS-Share devices/volumes for storage; while the
smaller storage node will access smaller/slower NSA- device/volume; Each volume
will be in its own pool for DeDupe (on NAS
device) reasons;
We would like to direct our larger clients (servers with big file-shares,
Exchange) to these larger Storage nodes;
We will have 3 groups (minimum) - respectively going to 3 media-pools; We will
mount the correct device/volume on correct Node (larger Share on larger Node
etc); Of course, we will assigng larger clients to larger group/pool; Is this
sufficient for the larger clients to be Directed/Picked-up/Backed-up-directly
by larger node, or do we have to specify in client's "Storage Node" property
for each of these clients ?
Also, for Weekend Full backups - we will also have "Clones" to tape - we would
like to preserve similar relashionship (ie., larger nodes doing clones to
faster tapes - directly by themselves, rather than going thru other nodes
tapes).
What we do NOT want to happen is - a big client picked up by smaller storage
node, and direct the backup to larger-node where the Pool/Share is mounted;
First of all its duplicate work, and secondly - smaller-node becomes
bottleneck; So, we want to eliminate smaller-node's role in backing up bigger
clients going directly to bigger storage-nodes; Besides multi-node hopping
backup is redundant;
We expect to have about 60 virtual clients, or about 40 physical clients to be
backed up for about - 20+ TB on fulls, may be about 1-2 TB on incrementals;
Your suggestitons are well appreciated,
Thanks
Srii
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
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
|
