Hello everyone !,
I am very new to Netbackup and have a few questions, at the end of the week we
get the error message unable to allocate volume space for new media status code
96, however once we have put some new tapes in the error goes away, however
week later it comes back again.
We use a DLT tape loader, using a 10 cartridge magazine, thats 35 GB X 10
nearly 350 GB of space !, Why is it the tapes keeping running out of space ?,
does anyone know ?..thanks !
>>> "W. Curtis Preston" <curtis AT backupcentral DOT com> 01/18/01 03:46PM >>>
If I may jump in, it's not that her backups are not indexed. I believe
that it's that NetBackup is not yet using the features of the most recent
versions of ONTAP.
With a regular NetBackup image, NetBackup keeps track of where within that
image a given file is. During recovery, it does the ioctl equivalent of an
'fsf n' where n is the image that it needs to get to, and then the ioctl
eqivalent of an 'fsr x' where x is the location within that image.
With NDMP, NetBackup can do the 'fsf n,' but it cannot do the 'fsr
x.' This functionality IS built within the latest version of ontap, but
NBU is not using it yet. Hopefully they will soon.
At 02:02 PM 1/17/01 -0700, Brad Fisher P70142 wrote:
>Well, I *am* new to Netbackup, but we have a similar setup going
>here and we're getting about 5mbs on full streaming backups using
>NDMP (760 filer to a STK9710) ... and I have fully indexed backups
>to restore from. Of course we are using the UNIX version of Netbackup
>to backup those NT shares ... are you using the NT version, and is
>it different???
>
>What is stopping you from having indexed clients with NDMP?
>
>Client: azXXXXX
>Backup ID: azXXXXX_0979695520
>Class: az25XXXXX
>Class Type: NDMP
>Sched Label: NetAppIncr
>Schedule Type: Differential Incremental Backup
>Retention Level: 3 months (5)
>Backup Time: 01/16/01 18:38:40
>Elapsed Time: 004:54:28
>Expiration Time: 04/19/01 18:38:40
>Compressed: no
>Encrypted: no
>Kilobytes: 89701474
>Number of Files: 510696
>
>89.7gb in 5 hours ain't too shabby ... short incrementals show poor
>performance of course because the filer has to look for the files.
>
>
>"Pearson, Kim (STP)" wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > 1) The RESTORES are horrendous - no indexes, so the entire
> backup is
> > "scanned" for the requested files/directories.
> > 2) Can't share the DLT's with non-NDMP boxes, so they sit idle
> a lot
> > of the time.
> > 3) Differential Incremental (daily) backups are HUGE - NDMP doesn't
> > look at the Archive bit, but rather "last accessed time". We back up
> > approximately 20% every night as a result. Should be closer to 1-2%.
> > 4) Proprietary tape format - not "generic" like tar or NT tape
> > format. Need NDMP to restore - not good for DRP.
> > 5) Direct attached tapes do not keep up with our UNIX "networked"
> > speeds! Explain that one! They get about 17 GB/hour vs. our 20+ GB/hour.
> >
> > So...that's why I hate NDMP, and in fact NAS. However, $ for $, NAS is hard
> > to beat for file storage, which is why they are becoming so popular.
> >
> > Kim
> >
>
>--
>Bradley W. Fisher
>Motorola UNIX systems consultant
>_______________________________________________
>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
|
