Multiplexing is great for backup speeds
but not so great for restore speeds as we found out at our first DR test years
ago.
A proper backup strategy needs to include
backup AND recovery time. It doesn’t do you any good to backup everything in
10 minutes if it takes you 10 months to restore. And of course the restore
time is only one part of the full recovery time.
As mentioned by someone else on this list
sometime back the DR SLA should include the complete recovery time which
includes things such as getting tapes to the DR location, getting personnel to
the DR location, getting equipment on line at the DR location, spinning tape,
and post restore steps to actually make things usable (e.g. applying archive
logs made after your last full DB backup).
From:
veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu]
On Behalf Of Paul Keating
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008
9:47 AM
To:
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] question
about restores in NB 6.5.x
My experience is that they run in the
order which you start them unless multiple restores are multiplexed on a tape.
ie, you start jobs in order, 1, 2, 3, 4,
5.
if your multplex restore delay is set
high enough, and images 2 and 4 are on the same tape, your restore order would
be:
--
-----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 rascal
Sent: April 24, 2008 12:04 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] question
about restores in NB 6.5.x
So I thought I would toss this out and get
some feedback.
As we all know, Netbackup automatically sets
restore jobs to have the highest priority when placed into the queue, barring
any changes to the configuration, acts of the unknown and just plain weird
stuff.... That being said, we had a issue during a disaster recovery
scenario where we had multiple restores running and fighting for
resources. On top of that, we had to try and organize the restores in
such a way that this restore runs first, followed by this one, than this one
and so on (i.e. set a priority/order within the restore jobs). My
question is that in my digging on google and symantec's site, I can't seem to
find anything that would let me change the priority/order of multiple restore
jobs; has anyone run into this and/or devised a method and/or has some tips on
how they handle restores during a disaster recovery scenario in order to set
priorities on what gets what resources and thus done first?
--
Matthew MCP, MCSA, MCTS, OCA
rascal1981 AT gmail DOT com
Define Trouble:
Why did you apply THAT patch??....
====================================================================================
La version française suit le texte anglais.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of
Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this
email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from
your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle.
La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion,
utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une
personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite. Si vous recevez
ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à
l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre
ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.