Networker

Re: [Networker] multiple instances of a client in one group?

2004-12-30 07:04:25
Subject: Re: [Networker] multiple instances of a client in one group?
From: Calvin Thomas <calvin.thomas AT NACALOGISTICS DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:03:30 -0800
This seems like a lot of work to get multiple save streams going.  Whats
wrong with breaking the client backup  into 3-4 save streams by specifying a
portion of the backup job instead of using all?

IE insted of all on a Windows PC, you specify
c:\
d:\
e:\

if the PC has 3 disks. If it has a single large disk, specify
c:\Directory1
c:\directory2
c:\Directory3

Each of these will start 3 save streams going and that's one more than you
get with your method.  The only problem with this is if you have a single
directory with 30-40 hugh files (I had this in an Oracle database backup.)
and you want multiple save streams.  That was a problem because it was a
UNIX client and I couldn't use wildcards.


However, with that exception, I have always been able to tune the backups to
run however I wanted with this method.

Just a thought

Calvin Thomas
UNIX System Administrator
NACA Logistics IT



-----Original Message-----
From: Legato NetWorker discussion
[mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU]On Behalf Of Preston de Guise
Sent: Wednesday, 29 December, 2004 06:28 PM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTMAIL.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] multiple instances of a client in one group?


Hi Tim,

> We're trying to set up multiple streams from a single large volume on one
> of our clients, using the trick with having two client instances -- one
> using Saveset "All" but with a server-side directive that skips certain
> directories, and the other client instance that just backs up those
> particular directories that are skipped via the All.  This method has
> been discussed on the list before, for example see my post and Itzik
> Meirson's follow-up from April 6th of 2004.
>
<snip>

> We have one instance of the client defined, with Saveset All and those
> directives being used.
>
> We're trying to create a second instance of the client, with Saveset set
> to just
>
> ZW01VOL1:APPS
> ZW01VOL1:FACILITIES
>
> As soon as I try put this second client in the same group as the first
> one, I get an error from NetWorker:
>
>         save set of All for client foo.bar in group GroupName excludes
>         any clients with the same name from the group.
>
> I can see why NetWorker would want to at least warn about this -- if
> you're using "All" with a client, in theory you're backing up everything
> so having a second instance of the client in the same group seems like
> a waste.  In practice, though, the directive controls whether anything
> is really getting backed up by that client instance.  In our case, there
> would be no significant overlap between the two clients, but NetWorker
> isn't smart enough to realize this.
>
> Is this just a limitation at version 6, or does this still happen at v7
> too?

No, it remains a limitation in NetWorker v7 as well. In fact,
NetWorker is so "smart" at detecting this that it will circumvent you
even if you force a creation of a second client in the same group
where the first client has a saveset of all:

[email protected]
~$ savegrp -pv -c mac Default
mac:/special                              level=incr
mac:All                                   level=incr
12/30/04 13:12:13 savegrp: Client mac has invalid save sets: 'All' and
others
12/30/04 13:12:13 savegrp: Ignoring other save sets for mac
12/30/04 13:12:13 savegrp: Run up to 4 clients in parallel
12/30/04 13:12:13 savegrp: mac:probe
started
savefs -s sol -c mac -g Default -p -l full -R -v

While I can appreciate the rationale behind the "no other client in a
savegroup when there's one with 'All' in it" rationale, I agree that
it's somewhat limiting and ends up creating situations whereby a lot
of people end up creating "inclusive" backup policies where they
explicitly include all the savesets to backup, which is often seen as
easier than maintaining two separate savegroups.

> For those of you that are using this trick to get multiple savestreams off
> a big volume, have you found any way to have both instances of a client
> in the same group, or are you forced to use a second group and run it at
> the same time?

See above - unless someone knows of a way of munging savegrp NetWorker
does it's best to force you to not do this, even if you circumvent it
:(

Cheers,

-Preston de Guise.

--
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. Questions regarding this list
should be sent to stan AT temple DOT edu
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=

--
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. Questions regarding this list
should be sent to stan AT temple DOT edu
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=