Veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] watching a running job (part 2)

2010-08-17 12:21:02
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] watching a running job (part 2)
From: Ed Wilts <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>
To: Nate Sanders <sandersn AT dmotorworks DOT com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:20:57 -0500
Lots and lots of little files will kill you.  DSSUs won't speed the job up - after all, your disk is unlikely to be faster than your LOT4 - but will prevent tying up a tape drive for as long.

You may also try to specify the exact mount points you want backed up instead of using the exclude list to avoid that ugly CIFS/NFS mount point so you're not walking the directory tree down a network path.

    .../Ed

Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE
ewilts AT ewilts DOT org


On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Nate Sanders <sandersn AT dmotorworks DOT com> wrote:
So moving on to the next problem server, while trying to backup the
Master server its self (RHEL, NBU 5.1MP6) using ALL_LOCAL_DRIVES and an
exclude file, the job has taken 20+ hours to finish two days in a row.
Looking at bpimmedia and adding up all the KB it looks like it's doing
about 232GB total.

I check bplist and I don't see any unexpected directories in the list.
How could 230GB take 20 hours on LTO4? Available tape hasn't been an
issue. Today I have it going to DSSU to see if its any faster.

Other thoughts?


On 08/17/2010 10:36 AM, Nate Sanders wrote:
> The job was for a Linux system and it appears what happened was this is
> one of our weird loopback mounts. The CIFS share is mapping to an NFS
> share that's shared via the localhost. Apparently Netbackup thought this
> was a local drive even though its CIFS resharing NFS. Turns out there
> was a missing exclude file for this single node excluding that path.
>
> On 08/16/2010 04:58 PM, Ed Wilts wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Nate Sanders <sandersn AT dmotorworks DOT com<mailto:sandersn AT dmotorworks DOT com>> wrote:
>> "the specified policy does not exist in the configuration database (230)"
>>
>> You were supposed to substitute your policy name, not use my template :-).  The job shouldn't be running if there isn't an associated policy.
>>
>> ALL_LOCAL_DRIVES can't be backing up CIFS shares since user SYSTEM shouldn't even map to those shares.  Is this a Windows system with a Windows policy or a Unix system doing an smbmount?
>>
>>    .../Ed
>>
>> Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE
>> ewilts AT ewilts DOT org<mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>
>> [http://www.images.wisestamp.com/linkedin.png]Linkedin<http://www.linkedin.com/in/ewilts>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

--
Nate Sanders            Digital Motorworks
System Administrator      (512) 692 - 1038
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu