Re: [Networker] Multiple Media Pools Bad?

Pools:
Archive
Monthly
MonthlyNDMP
Yearly
YearlyNDMP
DailyEDL
NDMPEDL
Offsite
OffsiteNDMP
ArchiveOffsite

Newest pool being considered:
TransactionEDL (MSSQL transaction logs)

They all seem necessary to me....  I need pools to be clone or stage
targets...  Plus I want to ensure that an SSID exists in one pool
versus another when making sure valid copies exist.  NDMP seperate
from normal backups is a must and should be required, but sadly isn't.

Alec

On 9/2/09, Greggs, Dana <c-dgreggs AT state.pa DOT us> wrote:
> In my environment we use two Pools, one for File System Backups and one for
> Database backups. We have 6 Networker Servers and two Storage Nodes backing
> up several thousand clients (VM's and Physical). The only caveat having a
> lot of Pools is not having an available drive to mount the tape when needed,
> unless of course you have more than two drives or your backups don't run
> concurrently.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dana
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] 
> On
> Behalf Of Chester Martin
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:45 PM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: Multiple Media Pools Bad?
>
> I didn't know if having a lot of pools will cause issues with networker.  I
> guess you could say we're a pretty big shop as far as data and servers to
> backup.  I have somewhere in the 200-250 of servers to backup, and over 100
> vm's, with more being added daily.  We have about 4 storage nodes and 10 or
> so dedicated storage nodes.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] 
> On
> Behalf Of Werth, Dave
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:06 PM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [Networker] Multiple Media Pools Bad?
>
> Chester,
>
> I don't necessarily think multiple media pools are bad depending on your
> situation.  But too many pools can cause unneeded complications for you.
> For instance we are pretty small in regards to NetWorker.  I backup a total
> of 16 Windows servers, 1 Solaris (UNIX) server and 1 MS Exchange server and
> we have 2 tape drives.  I only have 2 pools, one called "Backup" and one
> called "Backup Special".  I use the Backup pool for all of my regular
> backups and I use the Backup Special pool for our "Month End" archival
> backup and the occasional manual backup of specific things.  Then I also
> have corresponding clone pools for each of the backup pools.  It keeps
> things pretty simple for us.
>
> With a bigger NetWorker setup that has multiple storage nodes and/or
> multiple locations it would make sense to have more pools.  I'm not sure
> though it makes much sense to have multiple pools for separate OS or
> NetWorker Module backups unless they are big enough by themselves to fill a
> tape or more.  I tried that when we first got NetWorker and it was just an
> unnecessary complication for us.
>
> Dave Werth
> Garmin AT, Inc.
> Salem, Oregon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] 
> On
> Behalf Of Chester Martin
> Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 7:14 AM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: [Networker] Multiple Media Pools Bad?
>
> 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
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the
> sole use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this
> e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in
> error, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> 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
>
> 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
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

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