Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker
2003-05-11 21:36:20
Jon
Have you tried isolating the NetWorker application from the problem?
I.E. Run NT Backup with the same hardware configuration.
Regards
Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Legato NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU]
On Behalf Of Jon Minson
Sent: Saturday, 10 May 2003 12:14 a.m.
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by
networker
It would would be a nice feature for Networker to give some
warning/error/explanation when it decides to ignore W2K directories
containing billions of bytes of data .
Yes thats whats happening here . Its happened on 2 different W2K servers
of
dissimilar configurations. The setup is
1) W2K server running Networker 6.1.2 client (or greater)
2)Solaris 2.6 running Networker 6.1.2 or 6.1.3 server
Heres the ugliness
In one case the drive on the W2K box was 'E:\" in another case "F:\".
In the client setup I said 'ALL' for the savesets. After the backup runs
you
see that a particular directory(lets say XYZ) containing in one case 70
GB
data does not get backed up. Review of both server and client logs shows
NO
ERRORS/NO WARNINGS . This is not good.Further inspection of the backup
results shows that some of the data on "F:\" was dumped , only XYZ was
ignored.
I then go on to discover that by listing the directories explicitly
(F:\A
F:\XYZ F:\FUBAR) every thing gets dumped . This is not a good solution
for
obvious reasons .
I have been struggling with this issue since last October. Legato
'technical'
support must not think its much of an issue since I'm the only one
reporting
it.(We go through a 3rd party for support).
Is it a Networker BUG? W2K BUG? Networker Config Issue? W2K Security
Issue?
W2K Config Issue ? I don't care . I have supplied every log available
form
both server and client,every configuration detail from both server and
client. Silence . All manner of back up tests run . Silence
If you have a configuration similar to ours you might want to double
check
your back up results.
Heres some real data.
# savegrp -n -c xxxx -G TEST
xxxx:C:\ 8004 records 1585 KB header 872 MB data
xxxx:C:\ 874 MB estimated
xxxx:E:\ 96 records 18 KB header 11 MB data
xxxx:E:\ 11 MB estimated
xxxx:F:\ 240 records 51 KB header 424 MB data
xxxx:F:\ 424 MB estimated
xxxx:SYSTEM STATE:\ 4 records 1 KB header 0 KB data
xxxx:SYSTEM STATE:\ 1 KB estimated
xxxx:SYSTEM DB:\ 4 records 1 KB header 0 KB data
xxxx:SYSTEM DB:\ 1 KB estimated
xxxx:SYSTEM FILES:\ 2 records 1 KB header 0 KB data
xxxx:SYSTEM FILES:\ 1 KB estimated
SSSSS:index:8cfbc825-00000004-3d09d4b4-3d09d4b3-04670000-ac112846 352
records 72 KB header 26 MB data
SSSSS:index:8cfbc825-00000004-3d09d4b4-3d09d4b3-04670000-ac112846 26
MB
estimated
Notice the estimate for F:\
Now by listing F:\XYZ we see
# savegrp -n -c xxxx -G TEST
xxxx:F:\XYZ 17689 records 4094 KB header 71 GB data
xxxx:F:\XYZ 71 GB estimated
SSSSS:index:8cfbc825-00000004-3d09d4b4-3d09d4b3-04670000-ac112846 352
records 72 KB header 26 MB data
SSSSS:index:8cfbc825-00000004-3d09d4b4-3d09d4b3-04670000-ac112846 26
MB
estimated
#
Slight difference between 424 MB and 71 GB
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" 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.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
--
Note: To sign off this list, send a "signoff networker" 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.
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker, Jon Minson
- Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker,
Richard Hoare <=
- Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker, Vince Howard
- Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker, Robert Maiello
- Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker, Itzik Meirson
- Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker, Minson, John Spawar
- Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker, Itzik Meirson
- Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker, Narkinsky, Brian
- Re: [Networker] Billions upon billions of bytes ignored by networker, Reed, Ted G II [ITS]
|
|
|