Networker

Re: [Networker] License problems with upgrade Solaris 9, SBU 6.12 ,autochanger (Summary)

2002-09-18 18:28:05
Subject: Re: [Networker] License problems with upgrade Solaris 9, SBU 6.12 ,autochanger (Summary)
From: "Shelley L. Shostak" <sls AT QSTECH DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 15:27:58 -0700
On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Joel Krajden wrote:

> Subject: Re: [Networker] License problems with upgrade Solaris 9, SBU 6.12 ,
>     autochanger (Summary)
>
> Carl
>
> You were right that I needed a licence that would support all my slots
> and not
> just 32.
> but ... I also needed a "shared autochanger enabler" since two drives in
> the
> jukebox were attached to the Netapp while the other two drives and
> robotics
> were attached to the Networker server in my configuration.
> The admin docs for 6.1xx mention this, but the latest release notes, say
> this
> was an error and that the power and network versions do not require it.
> Well
> they do. I probaly lost 8 days figuring this out.
>

Joel,

Hmmmm.  I have a jukebox with two drives attached to a NetApp and two drives
attached to a linux box.  We are using Networker 6.1.1 build 238.  I have an
"autochanger module" license and an "NDMP client connections" license.  I have
no "shared autochanger" product.

>
> I still had a problem with where the index gets written. The netapp
> savegroup
> insists that the tape for the index be in the same pool as the netapp
> but on
> the Networker server and I don't seem to be able to get around this.
> This
> means that the netapp which is acting as a storage node writes the file
> system
> to a tape. The robotics than gets this or another tape labeled for the
> Netapp
> and sticks it into a drive hooked up to the Networker server and than
> writes
> the index. I would have thought that the pool  where the indexes for my
> clients usually go with tapes accessible to the drives on the Networker
> server
> in the same library would have been sufficient. The documents for
> setting up
> the NDMP client say that it should have its own 'NDMP client' pool, but
> this
> means that tapes from the same pool might have to be in more than one
> jukebox
> if I did not have the shared configuration. Hope I am not being
> confusing ...
> but it is.
>

I have the same setup and all my indexes get written to a separate pool.  I
forget the algorithm Networker uses for this but I think it is covered in the
SAG.

Shelley

--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff" command via email
to listserv AT listmail.temple DOT edu or visit the list's Web site at
http://listmail.temple.edu/archives/networker.html where you can
also view and post messages to the list.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=