Hello,
I'm not trying to "hijack" this thread so I'm posting it under another
subject.

Why do you think it's bad practice to have multiple pools?  Other than
the pain of unchecking the drives if you have to delete and recreate
devices (and it is a pain.. :), it seems to have worked well in our
setup.  We have multiple sites, and I don't want my backup traffic going
across the wan, so having multiple pools seems to have worked well.  

I have separate pools for each of the following at each site:
- windows os
- linux os
- sql
- exchange
- ndmp
- vcb

I would think that having multiple pools would speed up cloning as it
wouldn't have to wait for source tapes, currently I clone by group and
we have to make multiple clone copies of all of our data.  Having
multiple pools has worked pretty well for us.  

Is there some sort of impending doom that having a lot of pools will
cause in the environment, if so I need to change my setup.. :)


-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of Davina Treiber
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:21 PM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Make Expired Volumes Browseable

Tim Mooney wrote:

> Here's one thing I've never really understood: why separate your index
> savesets from your data?  I don't get what the advantage is, so we've
> never done that here.  Our indexes save to the same pool/tapes as the
> actual saveset data and their browse/recover period is the same as the
> saveset data.
> 
> Can anyone enlighten me on this issue?  I know there are plenty of
sites
> that are saving indexes separately so there obviously has to be a
valid
> reason for it.

The usual reason is to speed up a DR situation, so that when you do an
nsrck -L7 for all clients it does not need to read dozens of tapes.

There are other situations where it may be beneficial. Some sites have
lots and lots of pools (bad practice IMHO). In this scenario if you were
backing up some data to a storage node in one pool, NetWorker would need
to unmount the tape from the storage node and remount it on the server.
The worst case of this is where you have non-shared libraries, and
perhaps just a small library for just the server. In this case you could
need to have lots of tapes labelled in various pools on the server just
to write indices.

There are valid arguments NOT to have a separate pool for indices too.

There are also arguments both ways for backing up the indices all
together in one group rather than with the data groups.

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

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