Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Veritas\-bu\]\s+REQUIRED_INTERFACE\,\s+anyone\s+using\s+private\s+backup\s+networks\?\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Veritas\-bu\]\s+REQUIRED_INTERFACE\,\s+anyone\s+using\s+private\s+backup\s+networks\?\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: spaldam <nbu-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>; Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 12:50:42 -0700; In my experience, if you do it correctly, you won't need the "REQUIRED_INTERFACE" setting. It's caused me more problems then it has fixed. I'm sure there are some specific areas were you'll need it,; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-06/msg00040.html (11,260 bytes)
2. [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: deasnutz <nbu-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>; Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 16:52:24 -0700; Anybody have working experience on the "require_network" or "required_interface" functionality? Our clients/media servers have a private network to traverse. Master is not connected (different site); /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00097.html (12,858 bytes)
3. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: <Rusty.Major AT sungard DOT com>; Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 20:02:20 -0500; I've never liked REQUIRED_INTERFACE as it seems to be problematic. Perhaps it's just me. Most of our NBU servers have at least 3 networks (backup network, mgmt network and metadata/intra-nbu network); /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00098.html (16,443 bytes)
4. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: "Lightner, Jeff" <JLightner AT water DOT com>; Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 08:55:19 -0400; I’m with Rusty on this. We have been using a separate backup LAN for a few years now and have never used REQUIRED_INTERFACE. We simply set a backup host name (e.g. if primary is myhost then; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00099.html (24,999 bytes)
5. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: Girish Jorapurkar <girishsj AT yahoo DOT com>; Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 06:00:23 -0700 (PDT); I agree, using REQUIRED_INTERFACE is tricky and does not meet the needs in often cases. If NB 7.1, a new configuration - PREFERRED_NETWORK is introduced. It is very flexible (and hence, powerful) mec; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00100.html (18,647 bytes)
6. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: Daniel Otto <dan_otto AT symantec DOT com>; Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 06:14:48 -0700; FYI-It is a bit dated but may provide some insight. How to force backups over multiple networks due to which the use of REQUIRED_INTERFACE can not be used http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH37209 From:; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00101.html (29,683 bytes)
7. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: "Mark Glazerman" <Mark.Glazerman AT spartech DOT com>; Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 09:25:18 -0500; We also use host file entries and while the master and media servers can communicate across all the interfaces (public network and private backup network), the storage servers on each media server an; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00102.html (21,867 bytes)
8. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: veritas netbackup <nbuenterprise AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 11:22:06 +0530; Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Verita; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00104.html (14,572 bytes)
9. [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: deasnutz <nbu-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>; Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 10:11:02 -0700; What is the purpose of the parameter anyway? If the OS will route however the OS is configured, it seems like it will only work if the interfaces are on the same subnet. Yes, host files seems to be t; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00105.html (13,524 bytes)
10. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: A Darren Dunham <ddunham AT taos DOT com>; Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 00:03:34 +0000; No, it's a bit more than that. Think of the required interface as "When the media server connects to the client, this will be IP source address". I'm using in one situation. I have some physical host; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00114.html (13,969 bytes)
11. [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: rhugga <nbu-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>; Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 12:39:27 -0700; I've never needed to use that parameter until I started using Data Domain/OST. Prior to that I ran several netbackup masters some which sat on dozens of networks and never needed that parameter. Just; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00148.html (17,687 bytes)
12. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: "Lightner, Jeff" <JLightner AT water DOT com>; Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 15:48:03 -0400; I'm missing something here. I thought the OST stuff was done over SAN rather than LAN. Why would you have needed to go through the below for OST? --Original Message-- From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mail; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00149.html (19,136 bytes)
13. [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: rhugga <nbu-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>; Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 13:34:36 -0700; OST is just the API extended to 3rd parties like Data Domain. Before OST, backing up to disk was a kludge. (along came the VTL which was really just a jury-rigged way of doing backups to disk) OST al; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00151.html (14,870 bytes)
14. Re: [Veritas-bu] REQUIRED_INTERFACE, anyone using private backup networks? (score: 1): Author: "Mikhail Nikitin" <mikhail.nikitin AT gmail DOT com>; Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 20:43:28 +0000; The OST protocol is hardware-agnostic, but all implementation now use IP, as this way is faster and flexible (with 10Gig ethernet) than FC. For example, peak speed of a high-end Data Domain approachi; /usr/local/webapp/mharc-adsm.org/html/Veritas-bu/2011-05/msg00152.html (20,298 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]