[Veritas-bu] logic behind allocation of fragments to tape
2003-01-28 11:51:41
Subject: |
[Veritas-bu] logic behind allocation of fragments to tape |
From: |
sjaffee AT soe.sony DOT com (Jaffee, Sid) |
Date: |
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:51:41 -0800 |
Below is a snip from my "Images on Media" report. What puzzles me is why
NetBackup needed/used 6 DLT tapes (which handle 80GB each) when 4 tapes
would of covered it??? I only had extra tapes loaded as a precaution (in
case a sys-admin temporarily loads a ton of logs somewhere he shouldn't).
Yet, you can see NetBackup used all 6 tapes.
Backup-ID Class Type RL Files C E T PC Expires
Copy Frag KB Type Density FNum Off Host DWO MPX Expires
MediaID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
bosco_1043522261 bosco-ca FULL 3 164502 N N R 1 11:17 02/25/2003
1 IDX 30749 RMed dlt 2 0 sdlog1.sta 6
AW2005
1 1 77909517 RMed dlt 1 0 sdlog1.sta 6 N 11:17
02/25/2003 AW2006
1 2 48829347 RMed dlt 1 0 sdlog1.sta 6
AW2007
1 3 34517763 RMed dlt 1 0 sdlog1.sta 6
AW2008
1 4 34875099 RMed dlt 1 0 sdlog1.sta 6
AW2003
1 5 35069328 RMed dlt 1 0 sdlog1.sta 6
AW2004
1 6 10408041 RMed dlt 1 0 sdlog1.sta 6
AW2005
-----------
= 241639844 KB
= 241.6 GB <-- 4 x 80GB DLT tapes should cover this amount
Is there a reason that the last fragment (#6 = 10408041 KB) was seperated to
it's own tape? Or why fragment #4 and #5 weren't put on the same tape (as
they add up to less than 80GB)? If I had only put in 4 tapes, would
NetBackup been able to complete this backup?
Yes, these tapes were expired accordingly previous to this backup. I only
seek to be more economical with my tapes usage.
suggestions/comments welcome,
Sid Jaffee
Systems Engineer
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Veritas-bu] logic behind allocation of fragments to tape,
Jaffee, Sid <=
|
|
|