Hi All,
Hi,
I have Netbackup 6.0MP4 On Solaris 8 and I wants to configure Netbackup
for my clients which is running solaris10, when I configure normal way ,
the backup failling with EC: 58, I saw in Solaris 10 ,
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root bin 20 Oct 5 10:16 openv -> /opt/VRTSnetcl/openv
In Solaris 10 coming by default Netbackup installed ,
NAME: VERITAS NetBackup 4.5 Client, Patch FP8 for Solaris 10
an any one tell me how configure Thanks
Warm Regds,
Abdul Sattar
-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of
veritas-bu-request AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 11:03 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 18, Issue 13
Send Veritas-bu mailing list submissions to
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
veritas-bu-request AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
veritas-bu-owner AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Veritas-bu digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
(Edson Noboru Yamada)
2. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari
s
(Dominik Pietrzykowski)
3. Re: Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3 LTO3 dr ives (50
clients) (Dominik Pietrzykowski)
4. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari a
(Dominik Pietrzykowski)
5. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
(Dominik Pietrzykowski)
6. Re: LTO3 mixed LTO2 drive using LTO2 cartridgeswithACSLS
(Boris Kraizman)
7. Re: NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solaria s
(Boris Kraizman)
8. Re: LotusNotes backup strategy (Boris Kraizman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2007 19:12:37 -0300
From: "Edson Noboru Yamada" <enyamada AT gmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solari s
To: "Curtis Preston" <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com>
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<90f80d730710071512w409048d0p2b400d2a68756b9 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Thanks for correcting me, Curtis.
Regards
On 10/6/07, Curtis Preston <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com> wrote:
>
> I believe you meant to say that Solaris X86 isn't supported as a
> media or master server. It is supported as of NBU 6.5, using Solaris
> x86 10 running on AMD64, which is what the V40Z is.
>
>
>
> See the following document for clarification:
>
>
> http://ftp.support.veritas.com/pub/support/products/NetBackup_Enterpri
> se_Server/278064.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> W. Curtis Preston
>
> Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com
>
> VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu [mailto:
> veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] *On Behalf Of *Edson Noboru
> Yamada
> *Sent:* Saturday, October 06, 2007 6:35 AM
> *Cc:* veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solari s
>
>
>
>
> SUN V40z with SOlaris is not an option for NBU Server, since a media
> or master server running under Solaris is not (or, at least, was not)
> supported by Veritas.
>
> Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services,
> that is pretty high too (a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every
> single time he says "Good morning").
>
> rgds
>
>
> On 10/4/07, *Dominik Pietrzykowski* <
> dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Edson,
>
>
>
> You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
> out) to an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35%
> faster and only a few thousand more.
>
> We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer.
> This was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and
> Redhat and found Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We
> couldn't get plugins for the database we used etc etc. We also found
> that filesystem (about 5%) and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was
> better on the Solaris x86 system.
>
>
>
> Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
>
>
>
> You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
> Solaris from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean
Linux in general.
>
>
>
> I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when
> you look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for,
> they are very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't
> compare some of the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the
> E25K, they are expensive but for large enterprise business critical
> Apps I would only use them or a mainframe.
>
>
>
> I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
> that hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We
> ended up swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember)
> because we couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to
> change the parts all the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm
> not sure if it's the same in the US or other places ???
>
>
>
> Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the
> user base part:
>
>
>
> > I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider
> > user
> base for Solaris.
>
> I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
> lot of people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to
> that there would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would
> be minorities.
>
>
>
> Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past
> in the various places I have worked at.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Dominik
>
>
>
> BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
> sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
> Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and
> it works fine.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
> *Sent:* Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
> *Cc:* veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
> Solaris
>
>
>
>
> I dont think so.
>
> Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount
> of money you can buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more
> memory, more CPUs etc) and Linux with a so much better performance.
> I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
> opinion, of course.
>
> regards
>
> On 10/4/07, *Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy* < anepomn AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
> Dear NetBackup Experts!
>
> I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I
choose?
>
> Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
> think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
> base for Solaris.
>
>
> Is this indeed the case?
>
>
> Thank you,
> Aleksandr
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071007/
0eea2f0d/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:47:12 +1000
From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solari s
To: "Martin, Jonathan" <JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com>,
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE372D7 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hi Jonathan,
> We're a big Dell shop here in the US and I've got boxes nearing end of
> life / on their 5th and 6th year of warranty support and Dell has had
no
> issues getting hardware to me within the support guidelines (4hr or
Next
> Business.)
I don't think they care much about us Aussies !!!! To be honest we're
probably a small enterprise market when you compare us to the US.
Dom
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin, Jonathan [mailto:JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com]
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:17 PM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solari s
We're a big Dell shop here in the US and I've got boxes nearing end of
life
/ on their 5th and 6th year of warranty support and Dell has had no
issues
getting hardware to me within the support guidelines (4hr or Next
Business.)
Granted we don't buy extended support for most of our machines / we run
our
own "parts shop" with decommissioned hardware. I'll agree however that
Sun
hardware seems to last forever. I've got several ultra1-2s from 199X
still
running strong with an occasional disk failure years after their Dell
counterparts have had darn near every part swapped.
As far as Sun versus Linux, we ported a mission critical application
from
Sun to Redhat on Dell after running processor comparisons. At the time
and
for the money the current Intel chip was toasting the current Sparc from
a
processing load and financial standpoint. I don't keep up with the
current
Sparcs and I haven't tested any of the Solaris X86 but I can definitely
see
Sun having turned that around by now.
-Jonathan
________________________________
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu on behalf of Dominik
Pietrzykowski
Sent: Thu 10/4/2007 10:21 PM
To: Edson Noboru Yamada
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solari s
Edson,
You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
out) to
an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35% faster and
only
a few thousand more.
We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer.
This
was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and Redhat and
found
Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We couldn't get
plugins
for the database we used etc etc. We also found that filesystem (about
5%)
and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was better on the Solaris x86
system.
Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
Solaris
from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean Linux in
general.
I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when
you
look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for, they are
very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't compare some
of
the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the E25K, they are
expensive
but for large enterprise business critical Apps I would only use them or
a
mainframe.
I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
that
hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We ended
up
swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember) because we
couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to change the parts
all
the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm not sure if it's the same
in
the US or other places ???
Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the user
base
part:
> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
base
for Solaris.
I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
lot of
people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to that
there
would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would be
minorities.
Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past in
the
various places I have worked at.
Regards,
Dominik
BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and
it
works fine.
________________________________
From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solaris
I dont think so.
Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount of
money you can
buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more memory, more CPUs etc)
and
Linux with a so much better performance.
I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
opinion, of course.
regards
On 10/4/07, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy < anepomn AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
Dear NetBackup Experts!
I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I choose?
Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
base for Solaris.
Is this indeed the case?
Thank you,
Aleksandr
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
<mailto: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
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 09:48:53 +1000
From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3
LTO3 dr ives (50 clients)
To: Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy <anepomn AT gmail DOT com>,
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE372D9 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
Content-Type: text/plain
I had one (V440) running 4 x LTO2s and it didn't seem to break a sweat.
-----Original Message-----
From: Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy [mailto:anepomn AT gmail DOT com]
Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 4:03 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Adequate Media Server hardware to feed 3 LTO3
drives
(50 clients)
Dear NetBackup experts!
I have to select hardware to run a server with several LTO3 drives.
Each LTO3 drive can run up to 288GB/hour uncompressed - I don't
believe I can ever get this in a real life.
Questions:
1.Should I have each LTO3 on a separate fiber card?
2.Is Sun Fire V440 with 4 CPUs and 4G RAM sufficient?
Please share you experience if you can.
Thank you,
Aleksandr
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:29:10 +1000
From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solari a
To: Jon Bousselot <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com>,
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE37306 AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
Content-Type: text/plain
Hi Jon,
> Since we can now buy dual processor multi-core servers, that have
clock
> speeds significantly higher than sparc, we have likely seen the last
> sun/sparc media server in our datacenter. Unless I can convince
> management that the T2000 is a good idea and a great price, but this
one
> is going to be a political issue instead of a technical one.
It's a shame the Niagara CPU was not built for multi CPU servers. The
T2000
is fast but in a multi CPU box it would be amazing. That's why SUN is
bringing out the ROCK and the Niagara 2 (also known as Huron I believe
?)
due this month in Aus. I think you can bank on the Niagara 2 boxes but
it's
early days for the Rock. The Rock brings big promises and I hope it
delivers.
SUN certainly did have a low point for a while but I believe they are
doing
well to get out of it and I am happy with their new products. I am also
looking forward to playing with their new boxes. I wouldn't give up on
them
just yet.
Dom
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Bousselot [mailto:jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com]
Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 8:24 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solaria
I have been using NetBackup on Sun/Sparc hardware since version 3.2, and
a majority of my challenges came from the clients. It got easier when
Windows 2000 became the normal windows client, and I started using LTO
media. Solaris 9 and 10 have been very stable deployments as well, and
10 is supposed to have a faster tcp stack.
The x86 systems are clearly faster in GHz compared to current sparc
systems, and I think you still pay a premium license to Veritas for
using sun/sparc hardware for media servers. Current sun hardware has
some impressive internal bandwidth speeds, but this assumes you can
effortlessly get the data into the media server and back out to a tape
or disk. Internal bandwidth might win in a bake-off if you are trying
to see which server can buffer data faster in memory.
Over the years, I have appreciated how sun/sparc/solaris systems behave
like big computers and less like a PC. The newest Dell/Sun x86 systems
have integrated lights out managers, which will let you see the last
thing your dying server said before going down, which helps diagnose
hardware faults that would otherwise be lost on a headless x86 system
running linux.
Since we can now buy dual processor multi-core servers, that have clock
speeds significantly higher than sparc, we have likely seen the last
sun/sparc media server in our datacenter. Unless I can convince
management that the T2000 is a good idea and a great price, but this one
is going to be a political issue instead of a technical one.
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 10:34:19 +1000
From: Dominik Pietrzykowski <dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solari s
To: Edson Noboru Yamada <enyamada AT gmail DOT com>
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<A6F687CC9FF53A47A14D25BB454EF25CE3730B AT itexch3-bkup.toll.com DOT au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi Edson,
> Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services,
that
is pretty high too
> (a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every single time he says "Good
morning").
We have a good relationship with Sun here and don't find them to be
ripping
us off.
We have Platinum support but only all them in if there's hardware or
some
other sort of serious issue.
Most of them team here is competent enough to fix the other issues on
their
own. Plus we have an ex-SUN
person here who knows how to get a good deal out of them.
Regards,
Dom
_____
From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
Sent: Saturday, 6 October 2007 11:35 PM
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solari s
SUN V40z with SOlaris is not an option for NBU Server, since a media or
master server running
under Solaris is not (or, at least, was not) supported by Veritas.
Besides that, you have to take in account the cost of Sun services, that
is
pretty high too
(a Sun engineer charges uS$ 100 for every single time he says "Good
morning").
rgds
On 10/4/07, Dominik Pietrzykowski < dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au
<mailto:dominik_pietrzykowski AT toll.com DOT au> > wrote:
Edson,
You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came
out) to
an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35% faster and
only
a few thousand more.
We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer.
This
was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and Redhat and
found
Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We couldn't get
plugins
for the database we used etc etc. We also found that filesystem (about
5%)
and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was better on the Solaris x86
system.
Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for
Solaris
from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean Linux in
general.
I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when
you
look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for, they are
very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't compare some
of
the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the E25K, they are
expensive
but for large enterprise business critical Apps I would only use them or
a
mainframe.
I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find
that
hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We ended
up
swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember) because we
couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to change the parts
all
the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm not sure if it's the same
in
the US or other places ???
Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the user
base
part:
> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
base
for Solaris.
I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a
lot of
people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to that
there
would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would be
minorities.
Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past in
the
various places I have worked at.
Regards,
Dominik
BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and
it
works fine.
_____
From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com
<mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com> ]
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
<mailto:veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solaris
I dont think so.
Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount of
money you can
buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more memory, more CPUs etc)
and
Linux with a so much better performance.
I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
opinion, of course.
regards
On 10/4/07, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy < anepomn AT gmail DOT com
<mailto:anepomn AT gmail DOT com> > wrote:
Dear NetBackup Experts!
I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I choose?
Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
base for Solaris.
Is this indeed the case?
Thank you,
Aleksandr
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - <mailto:Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
<http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
5a81c439/attachment.htm
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 04:47:45 +0200
From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LTO3 mixed LTO2 drive using LTO2
cartridgeswithACSLS
To: "Martin Ruslan" <mit.martin AT gmail DOT com>
Cc: Marianne Van Den Berg <mvdberg AT stortech.co DOT za>,
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<7454e3bf0710071947r7effaa3dmcd13c97f4650ca3d AT mail.gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Martin,
I can proof, I have LTO-3 tape drives configured as hcart2 and use them
with
LTO-2 tape cartridges. I have the second site where just LTO-2 tape
drives
that is why just LTO-2 tapes for consistency. As soon as I will have a
chance to upgrade the second site with LTO-3 drives, I will reconfigure
the
first (not really primary site) site and then just do the backup with
LTO-3
tape drives and keep old LTO-2 drives for restores from LTO-2 tape
media.
So, the same what Marianne said. Btw, interesting thing, LTO-3 tape
drives
seams faster then LTO-2 drives even when you use them with LTO-2 tape
media.
Regards,
Boris
On 10/6/07, Martin Ruslan <mit.martin AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
>
> Yup,
> that can be the way.. but they want the ocular proof that LTO3 drives
can
> read and write the LTO2 media's.
>
> for all, the library is STK L5500. Is it support for the partitioning?
> getting more interesting here..
>
>
> Regards,
> Martin.
>
> On 10/3/07, Marianne Van Den Berg <mvdberg AT stortech.co DOT za> wrote:
> >
> > I would personally config the drives as hcart2 - easiest way out.
When
> > you receive your LTO3 media, reconfig your drives as hcart3 and add
your
> > hcart3 media. Your hcart2 images can be restored using the LTO2
drives.
> >
> > We have a customer doing that - LTO2 & LTO3 all configed as hcart2,
all
> > using hcart2 media. Backups written on the LTO3 drives using LTO2
media can
> > be restored on any of the drives.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > *Marianne *
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
5aa3bdd6/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 04:52:59 +0200
From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on
Solaria s
To: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<7454e3bf0710071952h67f2866dy82fef75eb9f79636 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Hi,
Yes, as I said. I am a RHCE as well, but I will vote for Solaris with
NetBackup. If you have Solaris in place, stick with it further, it is
going
to be a better choice.
On 10/6/07, Ed Wilts <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org> wrote:
>
> >I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
> opinion, of course.
>
>
>
> I disagree. New features have typically been released on Solaris
first
> with Linux to follow. For example, doing Windows Flash Backups was
> initially supported on a Windows master server, then a Solaris master
> server, and then eventually a Linux master. In terms of FlashBackup
> clients, Linux doesn't support this option until NBU 6.5. Ditto with
> Linux ACL support ? that's 6.5 as well. We're doing FlashBackups on
> Solaris today but have to wait until we upgrade to 6.5 before our
Linux
> clients can catch up. Even then, only ext3 support is there ? not
even VxFS
> on Linux!
>
>
>
> If you're going to live on the leading edge, then Solaris is certainly
a
> better choice than Linux.
>
> That said, we have a Solaris master and a Linux master. The Linux
master
> is in a remote office and is running on an Intel platform where Sun
wasn't a
> politically acceptable choice. It has not yet caused us any grief but
the
> environment is small enough that just about anything would work.
>
>
>
> FWIW, we've seen similar cases with Veritas VVR support ? it's
**much**
> better on Solaris than Linux.
>
>
>
> Solaris, at least for a while, will continue to be the enterprise
platform
> of choice for the majority of customers. I expect this to change over
> time. I'm a Red Hat Certified Engineer so don't put me in the Linux
hater
> camp.
>
>
>
> ?/Ed
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD
>
> Mounds View, MN, USA
>
> mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
a95d33e5/attachment.htm
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 05:03:05 +0200
From: "Boris Kraizman" <sysadminzone AT gmail DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] LotusNotes backup strategy
To: "Jon Bousselot" <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com>
Cc: Steve Quan <sq01 AT yorku DOT ca>, veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<7454e3bf0710072003i3497a84tffea6ae748e214a1 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Hi Jon,
Yes, it seems I am fine with using regular client agent. On windows it
is
consistent as it is using VSP or VSS for open files. It worked before as
well even on Linux. And no problem with restores, just restore the
entire
nsf files and then either give the access to users thru the Domino
links, or
merge with the existing mail bags. Notes Admins know how to do it. But
just,
we have a problem to turn the transaction logs, as we have mail bags
with
sizes from 1g to 5gig. Then Domino server cannot handle this properly,
it
looks like our messaging team is going to drop this idea, and we will
see
how we can implement retention policies using an archiving solution for
mail. I also agree that database level client (add-on advanced client
for
Notes) will slow your backup as it will go thru Domino API, and on IBM
site,
I found a lot of hot fixes just for Symantec/Veritas NetBackup, then
again
even more considerations. But, it looks like to convert LAN agents to
SAN
media servers will improve our situation.
Thank you,
Boris
On 10/5/07, Jon Bousselot <jon_bousselot AT sd.vrtx DOT com> wrote:
>
> We use the notes agent, and write about 380GB of data to tape, coming
> from two servers. The mailboxes are split by alphabet. Average
> throughput to tape is about 8 to 10 MB/sec from each client, and we do
a
> full backup every night. We keep the weekend fulls at a different
> retention than the weekdays, and backing up this much data makes a
> recovery very simple. I have reviewed the incremental notes backup,
and
> it appears to only get the transaction logs. We have not tested a
> restore from this type of backup, so I don't know how well it works.
I
> think we might just be lucky so far that we've never needed to roll a
> data file forward from logs. Usually we're restoring the entire .nsf
> file and letting users attach to the current and previous one to
manage
> the differences.
>
> Along with the full .nsf backups for mail, we also get the transaction
> logs. I don't think I've ever needed to use them.
>
> -Jon
>
>
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > We did transaction log bkups until recently, as we were never able
to
> get
> > our "point in time" recoveries to work. I suspect that it's because
of
> the
> > length of time it takes to do the database backup (couple of days
for
> just
> > over 1TB over the LAN). We also multi-streamed the transaction and
> > database backups to ensure that the transaction log file(s) would be
> > reinitialized.
> >
> > I'm still VERY interested in seeing how other sites are doing their
> Notes
> > backups/restores.
> >
> > /Steve
> > ---
> > On Fri, 5 Oct 2007, Boris Kraizman wrote:
> >
> >
> >> > Hi Steve,
> >> >
> >> > I have to get back to this topic. Do you do transaction log
backups
> using
> >> > NBU add-on database agent for Lotus Notes? How it works for you?
We
> are
> >> > still doing file level backups with regular NBU client for
Windows. I
> was
> >> > asked to evaluate transactional log backups as well, we have a
few
> mail
> >> > servers with 0.5TB data on each. We backup them over LAN, I am
> thinking to
> >> > convert them into SAN media backup servers. Any useful
information on
> how
> >> > you do the backup for Domino environment would be really helpful.
> >> >
> >> > I saw Jerry also responded on this topic. Jerry, could you please
be
> more
> >> > detail how you do VSS or I can see you do the array based
solution
> with
> >> > local copy cloning, correct?
> >> >
> >> > Does anybody do transactional log backups for Domino Notes? Any
pros
> and
> >> > cons?
> >> >
> >> > Curtis? maybe you can get back on this one.
> >> >
> >> > Thank you,
> >> > Boris
> >> >
> >> > On 5/15/07, Steve Quan <sq01 AT yorku DOT ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We've been "wrestling" with this for quite some time, and very
> curious to
> >>> >> see how other sites are managing their Lotus Notes backups.
We're
> running
> >>> >> NBU6.0 MP4 (servers and clients). The database is just over 1TB
and
> we do
> >>> >> transaction log backups.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks,
> >>> >> /Steve
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20071008/
7acc246d/attachment.html
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
End of Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 18, Issue 13
******************************************
UBS is expanding its presence in Singapore. UBS and its group of
companies are now operating from its new registered address:
One Raffles Quay
#50-01 North Tower
Singapore 048583
UBS Mainline: +65 6495 8000
Visit our website at http://www.ubs.com
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this
e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mails are not encrypted and cannot be guaranteed to be secure or
error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost,
destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender
therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the
contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. This
message is provided for informational purposes and should not be
construed as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any securities
or related financial instruments.
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
