Hi
I am new to setting media server like this one. Does any body has steps
to follow ? I alos heard TCP/IP trunking , what is these for better
performance ? Any catch to worry for long run ?
Appreciate your help.
THX
-----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: Thursday, November 06, 2008 6:52 PM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 31, Issue 14
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. Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade (Randy Samora)
2. Re: Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade (Haskins, Steve)
3. Re: Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade (Randy Samora)
4. Restore problems (BeDour, Wayne)
5. Re: Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups (Stefaan Margot)
6. Restore problems (Jim H)
7. Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups (SimonD)
8. Re: Restore problems (BeDour, Wayne)
9. Re: Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups (Stefaan Margot)
10. Error 800 (Baumann, Kevin)
11. What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (MPish44)
12. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (Ed Wilts)
13. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring?
(judy_hinchcliffe AT administaff DOT com)
14. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring?
(Haskins, Steve)
15. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (Ed Wilts)
16. What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring? (MPish44)
17. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring?
(judy_hinchcliffe AT administaff DOT com)
18. Re: What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring?
(Donaldson, Mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:16:16 -0600
From: "Randy Samora" <Randy.Samora AT stewart DOT com>
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade
To: <VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<243F09B90843F143AD9760E118AA01222622DE AT SPSHOUMAIL04V.sisco.stewart DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
12 Media Servers out of 13 went great. The one problematic server will
not start the Volume Manager Service. The first error told me that my
license eval had expired but it's the same license across the board. Is
there some bug that I missed? I'm going to open a call with Symantec
but this is usually quicker.
Thanks,
Randy
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:21:45 -0700
From: "Haskins, Steve" <Steve.Haskins AT bannerhealth DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade
To: "Randy Samora" <Randy.Samora AT stewart DOT com>,
<VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<5A5A59FDAFF12744A1DF88A54D268688029A390B AT PHX01106.bhs.bannerhealth DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Randy,
I had a similar issue and ran the install again with repair option to
correct it.
Regards.
-----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 Randy
Samora
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:16 AM
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade
12 Media Servers out of 13 went great. The one problematic server will
not start the Volume Manager Service. The first error told me that my
license eval had expired but it's the same license across the board. Is
there some bug that I missed? I'm going to open a call with Symantec
but this is usually quicker.
Thanks,
Randy
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 12:30:28 -0600
From: "Randy Samora" <Randy.Samora AT stewart DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade
To: "Haskins, Steve" <Steve.Haskins AT bannerhealth DOT com>,
<VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<243F09B90843F143AD9760E118AA01222622FC AT SPSHOUMAIL04V.sisco.stewart DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
I thought I had tried that earlier but just kicked it off again and no
luck. Although I am getting a different error now.
-----Original Message-----
From: Haskins, Steve [mailto:Steve.Haskins AT bannerhealth DOT com]
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 12:22: VIRUS ALERT!
To: Randy Samora; VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade
Randy,
I had a similar issue and ran the install again with repair option to
correct it.
Regards.
-----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 Randy
Samora
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 11:16 AM
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Issue After 6.0 to 6.5.2 upgrade
12 Media Servers out of 13 went great. The one problematic server will
not start the Volume Manager Service. The first error told me that my
license eval had expired but it's the same license across the board. Is
there some bug that I missed? I'm going to open a call with Symantec
but this is usually quicker.
Thanks,
Randy
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:56:06 -0500
From: "BeDour, Wayne" <WBedour AT lear DOT com>
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Restore problems
To: <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<F88081E4BD78A643A48274EAA5B35C123A1E74 AT USMISFL-EXM2.corp.lear DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Our environment, HP-UX 11-31 with a SureStore 20/700 tape library, one
master / media server running NetBackup 6.5.2 backing up mainly HP
servers with a few Sun and Windows boxes thrown in. One NBU 6.5.2 SSO
media server running on windows.
We are splitting some bcv's from one windows server (usmidea-esrv01) and
mounting them up on the SSO windows media server (usmidea-esrv02) to do
the backups. I am now trying a restore back to the original server
(usmidea-esrv01) and it is hanging and giving the following:
11/06/2008 12:09:30 - begin Restore
11/06/2008 12:09:36 - number of images required: 2
11/06/2008 12:09:36 - media needed: 001576
11/06/2008 12:10:11 - restoring from image usmidea-esrv02_1225908000
11/06/2008 12:09:48 - Error bpbrm (pid=7668) bpcd on usmidea-esrv01
exited with status 59: access to the client was not allowed
11/06/2008 12:09:52 - Error bpbrm (pid=5104) bpcd on usmidea-esrv01
exited with status 59: access to the client was not allowed
11/06/2008 12:09:53 - connecting
11/06/2008 12:09:54 - Error bpbrm (pid=5104) bpcd on usmidea-esrv01
exited with status 59: access to the client was not allowed
11/06/2008 12:09:55 - Error bpbrm (pid=5104) cannot put rename file on
usmidea-esrv01
11/06/2008 12:10:39 - requesting resource 001576
11/06/2008 12:10:40 - Waiting for scan drive stop HP.ULTRIUM1-SCSI.006,
Media server: usmidea-esrv02
11/06/2008 12:10:42 - granted resource 001576
11/06/2008 12:10:42 - granted resource HP.ULTRIUM1-SCSI.006
11/06/2008 13:12:12 - Warning bprd (pid=19382) Restore must be resumed
prior to first image expiration on Sat Dec 6 13:00:00 2008
11/06/2008 13:12:12 - end Restore; elapsed time 1:02:42
cannot connect on socket (25)
The error 59 says that "The master or the media server tries to access
the client, but the client does not recognize the server as a valid
server". When I check in the Client window in the NBU gui, both windows
servers are showing as connected. I have added the hostnames and ip
addresses to the Windows host files on both servers and the host file on
our Unix master server. Windows isn't my normal environment and I'm
sure I've missed something in the config but haven't found it yet.
Anyone out there have any ideas what I missed?
Thanks in advance....
Wayne BeDour
Unix System Administrator
PH: 313-593-9876
Internet: wbedour AT lear DOT com
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain legally privileged,
confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this
message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete this E-mail message from your
computer.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/
61b4a05f/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 20:42:08 +0100
From: "Stefaan Margot" <stefaan.margot AT pandora DOT be>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level
Backups
To: <VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID: <7138D4CA090E43AEA49010C81234ADAC@darthmaul>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Does anybody has a document describing how to backup MOSS2007 with
Netbackup 6.5.2?
We keep getting error 200 "No backups scheduled to run"
Any thoughts?
Thanks
Best regards,
Stefaan.
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] Namens SimonD
Verzonden: donderdag 6 november 2008 17:07
Aan: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Onderwerp: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups
Just to let you know, today Symantec released a technote on document
level backups/restores in 6.5.3. Hopefully it's useful to someone. I
will be trying it as soon as I have my hands on 6.5.3.
http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/305549.htm
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by sdampier AT datalink DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:48:40 -0500
From: Jim H <netbackup-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Restore problems
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID: <1226000920.m2f.290441 AT www.backupcentral DOT com>
I see that you have looked at the GUI, but I do not understand what you
meant by connected.
If you go to the Host Properties/Clients on the GUI and then bring up
your client usmidea-esrv01, Are the names of the master and media server
being used for this backup and restore shown in the server list?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by jhilton6 AT excite DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:20:51 -0500
From: SimonD <netbackup-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID: <1226002851.m2f.290451 AT www.backupcentral DOT com>
Are you trying to do document level backups or just full backups?
Document level backups/restores don't really work in 6.5.2 without
EEB's.
If you're wanting to do full backups, did you read the following
technotes/docs?
http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/307267.htm
http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/302438.htm - Chapter 7
Documentation is a bit thin on the ground when it comes to MOSS2007.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by sdampier AT datalink DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:20:28 -0500
From: "BeDour, Wayne" <WBedour AT lear DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Restore problems
To: <VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<F88081E4BD78A643A48274EAA5B35C123A1EED AT USMISFL-EXM2.corp.lear DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
That was it. I needed to add my SSO media server to the list. You and
Scott Deiter pointed this out at the same time. Thanks again to both.
Wayne BeDour
Unix System Administrator
PH: 313-593-9876
Internet: wbedour AT lear DOT com
-----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 Jim H
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:49 PM
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Restore problems
I see that you have looked at the GUI, but I do not understand what you
meant by connected.
If you go to the Host Properties/Clients on the GUI and then bring up
your client usmidea-esrv01, Are the names of the master and media server
being used for this backup and restore shown in the server list?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by jhilton6 AT excite DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain legally privileged,
confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended
recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of this
message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this E-mail message is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify the sender and delete this E-mail message from your
computer.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 21:33:22 +0100
From: "Stefaan Margot" <stefaan.margot AT pandora DOT be>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level
Backups
To: <VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID: <FDBB4554279B43C09F48A077F218A826@darthmaul>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I didn't install the EEB's ...
I'll have another try.
Thanks
Stefaan
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] Namens SimonD
Verzonden: donderdag 6 november 2008 21:21
Aan: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Onderwerp: [Veritas-bu] Sharepoint (MOSS) 2007 Document Level Backups
Are you trying to do document level backups or just full backups?
Document level backups/restores don't really work in 6.5.2 without
EEB's.
If you're wanting to do full backups, did you read the following
technotes/docs?
http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/307267.htm
http://seer.entsupport.symantec.com/docs/302438.htm - Chapter 7
Documentation is a bit thin on the ground when it comes to MOSS2007.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by sdampier AT datalink DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:37:51 -0500
From: "Baumann, Kevin" <kbaumann AT akamai DOT com>
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Error 800
To: <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<9B0824E8927D8E47BE300E8BB091D3B2A11798 AT MAVS1.kendall.corp.akamai DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
All,
I have a falcon attached to my media server and I want to use it for
disk storage. After configuring it and trying to run a backup to that
storage unit, I am getting an error 800.
"Error nbjm NBU status: 800, EMM status: Disk volume is down resource
request failed (800)"
Has anyone seen this?
Running Netbackup 6.5, master server is Solaris 10, media server SuSE
10.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/
14f29aad/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:58:00 -0500
From: MPish44 <netbackup-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>
Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID: <1226005080.m2f.290459 AT www.backupcentral DOT com>
In our organization we have a hole in the process between our unix and
backup teams.
We use includes vs. excludes for our misc. filesystem type backups.
The Unix team rarely tells us when they add a new filesystem on a
server. At current we have left it at a "If you don't tell us we don't
know about it" but that is neither proactive nor productive.
One of the members of our backup team that was formerly a member of the
storage team has a script in place that sends him an email whenever a
filesystem is added to a Unix server. His suggestion is that we take
the initiative and add these filesystems to the backups whenever a new
one comes in.
My thought is while that is great perhaps its time to move to an
"excludes" type of system, granted its a manual effort across hundreds
of Unix servers and we will probably have to manage the excludes in many
the same ways...
Thoughts? Am I making sense?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by MichaelPishnery AT eaton DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:45:21 -0600
From: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<995e39b60811061345sbdf9294wc0d06133274e8e66 AT mail.gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, MPish44
<netbackup-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>wrote:
> My thought is while that is great perhaps its time to move to an
"excludes"
> type of system, granted its a manual effort across hundreds of Unix
> servers and we will probably have to manage the excludes in many the
same ways...
By default, a file system usually needs to be backed up. You may have
bad backups if it happens to contain something like an Oracle database,
and you won't have an application-consistent backup, but at least you'll
have something.
It definitely gets harder with active/passive clusters since NetBackup
doesn't really support them very well, but something is better than
nothing. When your admins tell you how the file system really needs to
be handled, you can adjust your backup policies to do the right thing.
By if they forget to tell you anything at all, at worst case you'll have
a generic file system backup.
We tend to do most of our backups with a generic all_local_drives type
of policy coupled with some exclude for things like database volumes,
and then use application-specific policies to cover them.
Simple is always good. The less you have to muck with it, the more
likely you are to be successful.
.../Ed
Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE
ewilts AT ewilts DOT org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/
a6228d48/attachment.htm
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:46:04 -0600
From: <judy_hinchcliffe AT administaff DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
To: <VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<FE972C3F59A505478D7DBBF3613AB9D706982F1B@KWIVSEXP01.corporate.administa
ff.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I started with excludes from the beginning.
If I got "yellow men" return 1's I would look at why.
I now have a standard exclude for all aix severs.
You can apply that to more then one server at a time in the gui or use a
script.
If I still got return 1's I would look into those, and add the extra
excludes like live database dirs.
This is so much safer for your backups.
I do the same thing for my windows servers.
So now when I add a new server I apply the "standard" exclude via the
gui, and work on any others that might need to be excluded.
Usually after two days the server is all set and I don't have to worry
about it until I add the next server.
-----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 MPish44
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:58 PM
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring?
In our organization we have a hole in the process between our unix and
backup teams.
We use includes vs. excludes for our misc. filesystem type backups.
The Unix team rarely tells us when they add a new filesystem on a
server. At current we have left it at a "If you don't tell us we don't
know about it" but that is neither proactive nor productive.
One of the members of our backup team that was formerly a member of the
storage team has a script in place that sends him an email whenever a
filesystem is added to a Unix server. His suggestion is that we take
the initiative and add these filesystems to the backups whenever a new
one comes in.
My thought is while that is great perhaps its time to move to an
"excludes" type of system, granted its a manual effort across hundreds
of Unix servers and we will probably have to manage the excludes in many
the same ways...
Thoughts? Am I making sense?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by MichaelPishnery AT eaton DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 15:06:40 -0700
From: "Haskins, Steve" <Steve.Haskins AT bannerhealth DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
To: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>,
<VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<5A5A59FDAFF12744A1DF88A54D268688029A3927 AT PHX01106.bhs.bannerhealth DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I concur with Ed. By default I don't exclude anything as I don't control
the applications and changes made to them and have found that covering
my back is most important. The issue does arise, as Ed mentioned, when
they add new drives in a cluster but I think that the new 6.5 client
addresses that issue with a Netbackup cluster resource.
Regards.
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wilts
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:45 PM
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, MPish44
<netbackup-forum AT backupcentral DOT com> wrote:
My thought is while that is great perhaps its time to move to an
"excludes" type of system, granted its a manual effort across hundreds
of Unix servers and we will probably have to manage the excludes in many
the same ways...
By default, a file system usually needs to be backed up. You may have
bad backups if it happens to contain something like an Oracle database,
and you won't have an application-consistent backup, but at least you'll
have something.
It definitely gets harder with active/passive clusters since NetBackup
doesn't really support them very well, but something is better than
nothing. When your admins tell you how the file system really needs to
be handled, you can adjust your backup policies to do the right thing.
By if they forget to tell you anything at all, at worst case you'll have
a generic file system backup.
We tend to do most of our backups with a generic all_local_drives type
of policy coupled with some exclude for things like database volumes,
and then use application-specific policies to cover them.
Simple is always good. The less you have to muck with it, the more
likely you are to be successful.
.../Ed
Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE
ewilts AT ewilts DOT org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/
fcfefa0e/attachment.html
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:19:34 -0600
From: "Ed Wilts" <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
To: "Haskins, Steve" <Steve.Haskins AT bannerhealth DOT com>
Cc: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID:
<995e39b60811061419t1d2abaferab5d033f50d386af AT mail.gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:06 PM, Haskins, Steve <
Steve.Haskins AT bannerhealth DOT com> wrote:
> I concur with Ed. By default I don't exclude anything as I don't
> control the applications and changes made to them and have found that
> covering my back is most important. The issue does arise, as Ed
> mentioned, when they add new drives in a cluster but I think that the
> new 6.5 client addresses that issue with a Netbackup cluster resource.
>
I haven't heard anything about this cluster resource in the 6.5 client.
Do you have any details? Somebody asked about cluster support during
the Wizards session at the NetBackup Customer Forum here a couple of
weeks ago and I'm pretty sure I remember the answer being something like
"we just finished or are just finishing coding the solution". That's
quite a bit different from shipping in 6.5
Thanks,
.../Ed
Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE
ewilts AT ewilts DOT org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/pipermail/veritas-bu/attachments/20081106/
8ebf4578/attachment.htm
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2008 17:27:54 -0500
From: MPish44 <netbackup-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>
Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Message-ID: <1226010474.m2f.290479 AT www.backupcentral DOT com>
Good thoughts here... thank you!
One other question. What about NFS mounts? we have had to explicitly
list those in the policy else we just backup a place holder filesystem
"folder" with no data in it.
Is it better to just have the backup selections for a Unix F/S backup as
"/" and select Follow NFS and cross mount points or am I asking for
trouble?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by MichaelPishnery AT eaton DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:45:26 -0600
From: <judy_hinchcliffe AT administaff DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
To: <VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<FE972C3F59A505478D7DBBF3613AB9D706982FDA@KWIVSEXP01.corporate.administa
ff.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I depends on if the data is backed up at it source.
/opt from server1 mounted to /mnt on server2
I backup both servers.
Then I have no reason to backup /mnt as I am getting the same data I get
from /opt on server1.
As I backup the source server I don't backup NFS or CIFS mounts.
-----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 MPish44
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 4:28 PM
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring?
Good thoughts here... thank you!
One other question. What about NFS mounts? we have had to explicitly
list those in the policy else we just backup a place holder filesystem
"folder" with no data in it.
Is it better to just have the backup selections for a Unix F/S backup as
"/" and select Follow NFS and cross mount points or am I asking for
trouble?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by MichaelPishnery AT eaton DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 16:47:56 -0700
From: "Donaldson, Mark" <Mark.Donaldson AT cexp DOT com>
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem
monitoring?
To: <VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Message-ID:
<4CC4D5AA1741AA43A1FC5084E104A26E07506DA3@USCOBRMFA-SE-71.northamerica.c
exp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The majority of our NFS mounts are not backed up on the server that's
mounting them.
We have "cross mountpoints" checked but "follow nfs" unchecked.
We mount all NFS servers to a central machine and back it up there. We
consider this more managable than trying to decide on what server a
multiply-shared nfs mount will get backed up and where it should be
excluded. For example, a common filesystem for us is used to distribute
software across nearly a hundred servers. To backup it up 100 times
would be insane.
We really need to consider changing from a central NFS backup server to
using the NDMP method of backups but haven't implemented yet.
-M
-----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 MPish44
Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 3:28 PM
To: VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] What are your thoughts on filesystem monitoring?
Good thoughts here... thank you!
One other question. What about NFS mounts? we have had to explicitly
list those in the policy else we just backup a place holder filesystem
"folder" with no data in it.
Is it better to just have the backup selections for a Unix F/S backup as
"/" and select Follow NFS and cross mount points or am I asking for
trouble?
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by MichaelPishnery AT eaton DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
End of Veritas-bu Digest, Vol 31, Issue 14
******************************************
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
