This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.
--=_2A7585B0.7A1B70B5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Kathy,
We are doing exactly as you suggest and have been doing so since NetBacku=
p was implemented here in 1999. Granted we do have a few specialized pool=
s but for the most part our UNIX, NT/W2K and (dare I say it) Novell data =
are all commingled on the same tapes. We do abide by the NBU philosophy, =
however, not to commingle retention periods. I don't know what kind of ro=
botic library you have (if any) but the potential for manual tape managem=
ent in your current environment I think would be higher than if you had j=
ust a few pools. In our environment we have (2) STK L700 libraries (one w=
ith 600+ DLT tapes and the other with 300+ DLT tapes). We are getting rea=
dy to expand the second one so it is equal in capacity to the other. As f=
ar as NetBackup is concerned data is d
ata. It doesn't care (nor should you) which platform it came from. I thin=
k your co-workers should come out of the cave into the light and see what=
the world of server backup and disaster recovery has evolved into. In th=
is day and age with the do more with less philosophy, manual management o=
f the NBU tape environment is the last thing you want to dedicate resourc=
es to. You don't indicate if this is one of the issues you're dealing wit=
h or not but I always say "Let the iron brain do it".
Just my two cents worth.
Regards,
Dennis
Dennis F. Dwyer
Manager, Systems Software
Tampa Electric Company
(813) 225-5181 - Voice
(813) 275-3599 - FAX
Visit our corporate website at www.tecoenergy.com
The Colonel Says: "Time is not a test of the truth"
Translation: Just because you've always done it that way, doesn't make it=
right
>>> Kathryn Riddlemoser <kathy AT mitre DOT org> 04/15/2003 2:13:42 PM >>>
I work with a bunch of people that are use to doing things one way and I =
think
it's time to make a change. I'd like your opinion.
We currently have a few barcode rules associated with a bunch of differe=
nt
volume pools. The idea is not to mix Windows data with Unix data on the =
same
tape. Also, not to mix Unix with AFS on the same tape. Of course AFS r=
uns
on the unix box. Then there are those special servers that can use the sa=
me
barcode rule but should not share tapes.
Here's a few examples:
Barcode Pool
UXA................Unix_Archive
UXI..................Unix_Incremental
UXA................AFS_Archive
UXI..................AFS_Incremental
WNA..............Windows_Archive
WNI................Windows_Incremental
WNA..............SpecialServer_Archive
WNI................SpecialServer_Incremental
Here's what I think we should do:
Barcode Pool
A0000# NetBackup
Let everything go to the same tape. Scheduled full backups with a retent=
ion
level of Infinity will not share the same tape as scheduled incremental
backups with a regular expiration. So there is no need to have an Archiv=
e
pool and an Incremtal pool. I see no reason not to backup Unix and AFS t=
o the
same tape, so there goes more pools.
My co-workers say, Unix and Windows should not backup to the same tapes
because their backup format differs (tar versus winzip). Bottom line...
NetBackup uses tar so I don't think it matters. Agree??
Appreciate any opinions on this matter.
Regards
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
--=_2A7585B0.7A1B70B5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: HTML
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-=
1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1173" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 10pt Tahoma; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px">
<DIV>Kathy,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We are doing exactly as you suggest and have been doing so since Net=
Backup=20
was implemented here in 1999. Granted we do have a few specialized pools =
but for=20
the most part our UNIX, NT/W2K and (dare I say it) Novell data are all=20
commingled on the same tapes. We do abide by the NBU philosophy, however,=
not to=20
commingle retention periods. I don't know what kind of robotic library yo=
u have=20
(if any) but the potential for manual tape management in your current=20
environment I think would be higher than if you had just a few pools. In =
our=20
environment we have (2) STK L700 libraries (one with 600+ DLT tapes and t=
he=20
other with 300+ DLT tapes). We are getting ready to expand the second one=
so it=20
is equal in capacity to the other. As far as NetBackup is concerned data =
is=20
data. It doesn't care (nor should you) which platform it came from. I thi=
nk your=20
co-workers should come out of the cave into the light and see what the wo=
rld of=20
server backup and disaster recovery has evolved into. In this day and age=
with=20
the do more with less philosophy, manual management of the NBU tape envir=
onment=20
is the last thing you want to dedicate resources to. You don't indicate i=
f this=20
is one of the issues you're dealing with or not but I always say "Let the=
iron=20
brain do it".</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Just my two cents worth.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV>Dennis</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dennis F. Dwyer<BR>Manager, Systems Software<BR>Tampa Electric=20
Company</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>(813) 225-5181 - Voice<BR>(813) 275-3599 - FAX</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Visit our corporate website at <A=20
href=3D"http://www.tecoenergy.com">www.tecoenergy.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The Colonel Says: "Time is not a test of the truth"<BR>Translation: =
Just=20
because you've always done it that way, doesn't make it=20
right<BR><BR>>>> Kathryn Riddlemoser <kathy AT mitre DOT org>
04/=
15/2003=20
2:13:42 PM >>><BR>I work with a bunch of people that are use to =
doing=20
things one way and I think<BR>it's time to make a change. I'd like =
your=20
opinion.<BR><BR>We currently have a few barcode rules associated with a b=
unch=20
of different<BR>volume pools. The idea is not to mix Windows =
data=20
with Unix data on the same<BR>tape. Also, not to mix Unix wit=
h AFS=20
on the same tape. Of course AFS runs<BR>on the unix box. Then there=
are=20
those special servers that can use the same<BR>barcode rule but should no=
t share=20
tapes.<BR><BR>Here's a few=20
examples:<BR><BR>Barcode &=
nbsp; =20
Pool<BR>UXA................Unix_Archive<BR>UXI..................Unix_Incr=
emental<BR>UXA................AFS_Archive<BR>UXI..................AFS_Inc=
remental<BR>WNA..............Windows_Archive<BR>WNI................Window=
s_Incremental<BR>WNA..............SpecialServer_Archive<BR>WNI...........=
=2E....SpecialServer_Incremental<BR><BR>Here's=20
what I think we should=20
do:<BR><BR>Barcode =20
Pool<BR>A0000# NetBackup<BR><BR>Let=20
everything go to the same tape. Scheduled full backups with a=20
retention<BR>level of Infinity will not share the same tape as scheduled=20
incremental<BR>backups with a regular expiration. So there is no ne=
ed to=20
have an Archive<BR>pool and an Incremtal pool. I see no reason not =
to=20
backup Unix and AFS to the<BR>same tape, so there goes more pools.<BR><BR=
>My=20
co-workers say, Unix and Windows should not backup to the same=20
tapes<BR>because their backup format differs (tar versus winzip). B=
ottom=20
line...<BR>NetBackup uses tar so I don't think it matters. =20
Agree??<BR><BR>Appreciate any opinions on this=20
matter.<BR><BR>Regards<BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________=
________<BR>Veritas-bu=20
maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu<BR><A=20
href=3D"http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu">http:/=
/mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu</A><BR></DIV></BODY><=
/HTML>
--=_2A7585B0.7A1B70B5--
|