OK - I just tested this.

I built a policy with two NEW_STREAM directives, one stream with a real
file, the other with a dummy file. 

I ran the policy and got an error 71 on the stream with the dummy file.
No surprise there.

I then excluded the dummy file using an exclude_list.<policy> file and
ran the backup again.  The stream with the dummy file still issued a 71.

So - even if you exclude the entire contents of the stream in the
exclude file, you still get an error 71 when you attempt it.  I,
frankly, expected this given how Netbackup implements the exclusion list
(it scans for the specified directories & files first, then applies the
exclusions).

I'd suggest what I suggested before, add a single dependable file, like
/etc/passwd, to the stream with the raw devices in it so it always has
one valid file, the others that are missing won't matter then.  You
won't even need the exclusion list if those raw devices don't exist on
that server.

-M

-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Paul
Keating
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 6:23 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] RE: [Veritas-bu]Status 71...was: Volume Pools
[recommendations please]

I don't know why you're getting that error, but it must be specific to
the raw backups.

In my environment, I have several clusters....each has a shared data
drive, and each has a system particion and a couple others.

Example

Cluster_node_1:
/
/u
/node1

Cluster_node_2:
/
/u
/node2


There's a policy that backs up "cluster" /data, which is the shared
resource, backed up via a virtual name/IP, but I have another policy
that backs up the physical nodes.

The backup selections list has the following:
/
/u
/node1
/node2

The client list has:
Cluster_node_1
Cluster_node_2

There are no exclude lists on either node...
/node1 gets backed up on the node1 backup, and /node2 gets backed up on
the node2 backup.
Never get a 71.

Works a charm...so I would venture to guess it's either specific to the
raw backup, or it doesn't like that you've specified and exclude list
for a fs that doesn't exist.

Paul



-- 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Dave 
> Markham
> Sent: April 27, 2006 5:47 AM
> To: bob944 AT attglobal DOT net
> Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]
> 

> 
> Now can someone answer me what happens if you have a 2 clients in a
> policy which has 2 streams as follows :-
> 
> NEW_STREAM
> /data
> /u01
> /u02
> NEW_STREAM
> /devices/something/mp@121,raw
> /devices/something/mp@122,raw
> /devices/something/mp@123,raw
> /devices/something/mp@124,raw
> 
> both clients have the directories /data etc (the file system 
> stuff) and
> only one client has the raw partitions vvisible. They are both in the
> same policy as i want them to write to the same tapes and 
> have the same
> retention. I have an exclude_list.<policy> on the client 
> without the raw
> partitions containing the raw partitions yet i get a backup 
> exit status
> of 71 for this client which is none of files in file list exist.
> 
> I know this is because the new_stream will create a new job for that
> client but why is the exclude list not being used or is it 
> and its just
> no other files are in the list so it exits with 71?
>