Your approach has some really ugly consequences.  First, you need to know
which host actually hosted the data on the day that you're restoring from.
If your recovery was from a backup taken 6 months ago, was the data on the a
node, b node, c node, or d node?  Secondly, the day the disk fails over from
one to another, you will trigger a full backup since NetBackup will not know
that it's the same disk - it simply sees a new disk on a new host.  To make
matters worse, you probably had something bad happen to the first node to
make the disk fail over in the first place - you now aggravate that by
putting extra stress on the remaining node(s) doing full backups.

If you have large clusters - and we have >100 luns with >20TB of data on a
single cluster, you'll see that your approach isn't scalable.  

Welcome to NetBackup!  :-)

        .../Ed

--
Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org
I GoodSearch for Bundles Of Love:
http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=821118 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leidy, Jason D [mailto:Leidy.Jason AT con-way DOT com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 9:32 AM
> To: Ed Wilts; Martin, Jonathan; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Windows flash-backup experiences (again)
> 
> I backup ALL_LOCAL_DRIVES on a few of our clusters, it gets everything.
> For instance, I'll put both physical nodes that host the cluster in a
> policy that uses the ALL_LOCAL_DRIVES option. I'm new to the backup
> world, is this not the best practice? It gets the quorum and everything
> (I'm able to restore the data).
> 
> Jason


_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu