Networker

Re: [Networker] Can anyone answer this clone weirdness?

2006-12-19 11:53:00
Subject: Re: [Networker] Can anyone answer this clone weirdness?
From: George Sinclair <George.Sinclair AT NOAA DOT GOV>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:52:21 -0500
Where is said AR0066, I meant TST0066, and where I said ARC037, I meant TSTC037

I'm thinking that based on the default tape capacity and the expected size of the save set (534 GB), that NetWorker thinks it can finish the clone on volume TSTC037. The default tape capacity setting is 600 GB. It's only written out 85 GB, so maybe it thinks it can easily finish the remainder (534 GB - 67 GB = 467 GB). Volume TSTC036 is already full. Maybe the sumsize value that it's reporting is just a best guess or a faux
value based on what it thinks it can do?

BUT, lets suppose that it ends up filling up volume TSTC037 at 300 GB and not 600. Then, it would report 300 GB for the sumsize and then put the last 167 GB on a third volume in which case that volume would be the tail and it would have to change volume TSTC037 to the middle section? So basically, all bets are off until the cloning is complete and there's no longer an 'i' value reported for the clflags.

I guess the 'i' could indicate either incomplete, because it's still in progress, or it could still report an i after it's done. I used to see that a lot with 6.x, even after the cloning finished, in which case I would run nsmmm -d to remove it from the media database and then I'd rerun the clone, so in that case it really was
incomplete that first time.

Maybe that's how it works? Hmm ...

George

George Sinclair wrote:

I have a save set that I'm cloning. The total size of the save set is approx. 534 GB. The group has automatic cloning enabled. This is the last save set in the group that needs to be cloned, and then the group will be completed. We're running 7.2.2 on Solaris. The numbers reported so far for the cloned saveset do not jibe. Maybe I'm missing something, but ...

Here's what mminfo says for the save set (original copy):

mminfo -s server -q 'ssid=2609147230,pool=TEST -ot -r 'volume,client,savetime,sumsize,totalsize,level,sumflags,name,ssflags,clflags,written,ssid,cloneid'

volume client date size total lvl fl name ssflags clflg written ssid cloneid TST0060 fred 12/16/06 77 GB 547957706656 full hb /9/exports/dir7 vF 336 GB 2609147230 1166306654 TST0061 fred 12/16/06 88 GB 547957706656 full mb /9/exports/dir7 vF 318 GB 2609147230 1166306654 TST0063 fred 12/16/06 86 GB 547957706656 full mb /9/exports/dir7 vF 324 GB 2609147230 1166306654 TST0064 fred 12/16/06 102 GB 547957706656 full mb /9/exports/dir7 vF 306 GB 2609147230 1166306654 TST0065 fred 12/16/06 103 GB 547957706656 full mb /9/exports/dir7 vF 302 GB 2609147230 1166306654 TST0066 fred 12/16/06 76 GB 547957706656 full tb /9/exports/dir7 vF 307 GB 2609147230 1166306654

Now, here's what mminfo says about the currently running clone save set:

mminfo -s server -q 'ssid=2609147230,pool=TEST SDLT Clone' -ot -r 'volume,client,savetime,sumsize,totalsize,level,sumflags,name,ssflags,clflags,written,ssid,cloneid'

volume client date size total lvl fl name ssflags clflg written ssid cloneid TSTC036 fred 12/16/06 67 GB 547957706656 full ha /9/exports/dir7 vF i 298 GB 2609147230 1166529674 TSTC037 fred 12/16/06 467 GB 547957706656 full ta /9/exports/dir7 vF i 85 GB 2609147230 1166529674

OK, since it's still cloning, I can understand the presence of the 'i', but

1. Why the heck is it reporting 467 GB written to the portion on volume ARC037?! This volume only has that one saveset on it, and only 85 GB of data has been written to the volume total! How can it claim 467 GB of the cloned save set is on a volume
that currently only has 85 GB of data on it?

2. If you add up 467 and 67, you get about 534 so you'd think you'd be done, but nwadmin is indicating that volumes TST0063, 64, 65 and 66 will still be needed. That doesn't make sense based on the 467 GB reported, but needing volume AR0066 makes sense since that would be read last since it contains the tail, but why would it be indicating that the tail for the clone is already being written to volume ARC037? I would
expect that to be reported as a middle section.

This all seems odd. Maybe the numbers will be modified and everything will jibe when it's done? Anyone seen this behavior before?

George



--
George Sinclair - NOAA/NESDIS/National Oceanographic Data Center
SSMC3 4th Floor Rm 4145       | Voice: (301) 713-3284 x210
1315 East West Highway        | Fax:   (301) 713-3301
Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282  | Web Site:  http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
- Any opinions expressed in this message are NOT those of the US Govt. -
To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and type 
"signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to networker-request 
AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this list. You can access the 
archives at http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>