Erik, Darren has already suggested a way that you can do that: use redundant
(length-wise) retention levels and use a different one in each of your
policies. That falls down if you need more than 15 slots (or more than one
different duration), but you already asserted that you currently have 15 pools.
I happen to think that you are making things more complicated for yourself, not
easier, with this scheme of extra restrictions around what goes onto which
media (I think you'd be better served by using storage lifecycle policies at
the time of backup and having a disk storage unit into which you duplicate
images at time of DR), but that really is the best bet to get roughly what you
have now in the context of KMS, as currently implemented in NetBackup 6.5. (You
could also wait on implementing encryption until KMS is a bit more mature or
use a third-party key management.)
--
gabriel rosenkoetter
Radian Group Inc, Senior Systems Engineer
gabriel.rosenkoetter AT radian DOT biz, 215 231 1556
-----Original Message-----
From: erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT com [mailto:erik.robertello AT
firstinvestors DOT com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:44 PM
To: Rosenkoetter, Gabriel; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Cc: ddunham AT taos DOT com; minhaj.hussain AT firstinvestors DOT com
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools
I am sorry I should have clarified, it is not that the speed is slow. It is
more efficient, getting max performance out of our tape drives, restoring
different pools in parallel.
I think what I am really asking, is there anyway to specify certain policies to
be backed up by a specific collection of tapes.
Erik
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosenkoetter, Gabriel [mailto:Gabriel.Rosenkoetter AT radian DOT biz]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:06 PM
To: Erik Robertello; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Cc: ddunham AT taos DOT com; Minhaj Hussain
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools
On point 1, you should do exactly what Darren has already suggested: burn some
extra retention level slots (I encourage you not to change the ones at 9 or
below) on multiple copies of the same actual time of retention. Unless you
change the default configuration (and please, don't), NetBackup will refuse to
colocate images from different retention levels (note: not necessarily
different durations of retention) on the same media.
On point 2, I think that your understanding of how NetBackup deals with media
servers' media is slightly off. Creating a pool for each media server certainly
does segregate the media that server will use, but it doesn't buy you anything.
If a tape a media server has previously used is currently mounted by another
media server (which it still could be even with your pool configuration if, for
example, you're making use of Vault duplication or Storage Lifecycle Policies),
the first media server will simply pull a new one out of the Scratch pool, and
backups will proceed at the same speed. Have you found some problem with this
that I'm missing?
--
gabriel rosenkoetter
Radian Group Inc, Senior Systems Engineer
gabriel.rosenkoetter AT radian DOT biz, 215 231 1556
-----Original Message-----
From: erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT com [mailto:erik.robertello AT
firstinvestors DOT com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:52 AM
To: ddunham AT taos DOT com; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Cc: minhaj.hussain AT firstinvestors DOT com
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools
We are using approx 15 volume pools for several reasons.
Having many pools allows us to restore different pools simultaneously at our DR
facility, getting the maximum results within our window.
This is also the case for backing up the data. Different media servers having
their own pools is really efficient. We have a specific backup window that
might be hard to accomplish without using pools.
We would like to utilize KMS but we have learned that we are limited to 2 pools.
We are currently running 6.5.2 and will be upgrading to 6.5.3.
Really appreciate any suggestions.
Erik
-----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 A Darren
Dunham
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:09 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:37:05AM -0500, erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT
com wrote:
> My previous post should have read:
>
> I am looking to eliminate volume pools in an effort to utilized
> hardware encryption (limited to 2 volume pools). Is there another way
> to experience the same results of using volume pools "without" using
> volume pools?
I guess that depends on what you're using volume pools for in the first
place. What do you lose in your environment by removing them?
The main purpose behind them is volume segregation. Easily preventing
certain data from being on the same volume as other data. Ease of
reporting/identification is a plus as well. Depending why you're doing
these (and the particulars), you might be able to come up with
alternatives.
Creative use of different retention policies (which use separate tapes
by default) and scripting for identification can help.
--
Darren
_______________________________________________
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
|
