I have done a full system restore, or attempted to, and it doesn't work.

Somewhere along the way, you start over-writing the library files linked into 
the running bpbkar executable and then the restore will die.

BMR is an exception, but just doing a full restore from root downward doesn't 
work.

-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 Dave 
Markham
Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2009 6:50 AM
To: Boris Kraizman
Cc: John Nardello; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Can you reassure my understanding.

Thanks All.

Pretty much exactly what i was thinking, so its good to know i'm not 
loosing my marbles.

Problem was i wasn't consulted at design time.

We are doing a proof of concept as the design has already been 
"approved" apparently and we shouldn't be changing it on theories. Pah.

I can't wait for the big fat "Told you So!"

Even if it works on one box its not going to work on all 6 i'm sure, and 
even if it does i'm not signing off on it for SLA for support team as 
its not a way to be doing a fully supported DR approach.

Cheers


Boris Kraizman wrote:
> I found the best way is to build the OS to match the original, then 
> recover all data including system files via NetBackup. I do have BMR 
> configured, but the sequential order for restore will take much longer 
> then OS, and then full systems restore on top. I don't do BMR for 
> Solaris and Linux systems at all, just a full system backups and then 
> OS build with data restores. It works well on Windows with full 
> systems restore including the regsitry and system state, no really a 
> problem with diffirent hardware, there are some tricks anywhere. You 
> would need de-select a few system files, use w2koption per the tech 
> note, and you will be fine.
>
> Boris Kraizman
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Mark Glazerman 
> <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com <mailto:Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT 
> com>> wrote:
>
>     We tested this and you are right that you will likely run into
>     problems doing an entire system restore via netbackup. Even with
>     the best will in the world, there is bound to be some kind of
>     configuration file which will mess things up on the running system
>     during the restore. Will the servers at site 2 be the same
>     architecture / patch level / NICS etc ? Unless you have everything
>     100% the same you'll run into snags. Also... make sure that when
>     you lay the data down you don't lay down the Netbackup files or
>     you'll hose your restore (as we found out !!).
>
>     If the servers will have identical names and IP's etc... why not
>     just build them as if they were the servers in your home data
>     center but with duplicate (but empty) file systems. In a DR
>     situation all you'd need to restore would be your data files into
>     those empty filesystems. The OS stuff would be as if they were
>     your servers in your home data center.
>
>     Mark Glazerman
>     Desk: 314-889-8282
>     Cell: 618-520-3401
>     狭 please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>     <mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
>     [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>     <mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>] On Behalf Of
>     John Nardello
>     Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 1:37 PM
>     To: dave.markham AT fjserv DOT net <mailto:dave.markham AT fjserv DOT 
> net>;
>     veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>     <mailto:veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
>     Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Can you reassure my understanding.
>
>     Most servers get really ticked off if you try to overwrite the
>     running OS files - assuming they'll let you do it at all. Probably
>     because an overwrite is effectively a delete and then create. So
>     great, what happens when you restore that critical library file
>     that Solaris was using to run ? Or heck, when you restore bpbkar ?
>     Or inetd ?
>
>     If the CSA guy refuses to back down though, no sweat, ask for a
>     proof of concept test. "Let's see what really happens when we do
>     it this way." If only because it ought to be fun to see exactly
>     how messed up the destination server gets. =) And don't sign off
>     on it as the full DR method until you get one.
>
>     Bare metal restores != file-level restores.
>
>     - John Nardello
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>     <mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
>     [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>     <mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>] On Behalf Of
>     Dave Markham
>     Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 3:50 AM
>     To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>     <mailto:veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
>     Subject: [Veritas-bu] Can you reassure my understanding.
>
>     Guys i'm after a bit of backup as am perhaps doubting myself now.
>
>     I'm having a bit of a row with a CSA (solutions architect) at our
>     company.
>
>     A backup design has been done where 2 sites have Solaris clients
>     configured with the same name and ip, and one site is just
>     disconnected
>     from the network.
>     There is a Netbackup Server 6.5.3 (Windows) which backs up the
>     connected clients from site 1.
>
>     What they want for a DR test is this :-
>
>     1. Disconnect the clients from site1 on the network.
>     2. Enable the network connections of clients on site2 (with same name
>     and ip of site1 clients)
>     3. Restore to the running Solaris server through netbackup of a client
>     image taken on site 1.
>
>     My understanding was you wouldn't ever try and restore a whole system
>     from file system based backups to a running solaris OS. Is that
>     correct
>     still?
>
>     I also can see all sorts of problems having the client names the same
>     and same ips. Arp tables etc. I'd personally have the client names
>     referenced differently in Netbackup regardless of the hostnames which
>     could be the same?
>
>     Cheers
>     _______________________________________________
>     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
>     <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
>     <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
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu