Rob Worman <rob AT worman DOT org> had this to say,

> It's important to differentiate between a "new NBU client" install 
> and "refreshing the binaries on an existing NBU client".  Your 
> comments above relate to a new client install, whereas Deb's original 
> words seemed to relate more to updating existing clients...

Yes, that's correct.  I can understand installing new clients locally, but I'm
really more interested in *updating* all clients (unix, windoze, macosX) from
a unix server.
 
> update = the update_clients command on your unix master server (or 
> the patch install wizard on an NT client) uses the NBU bpcd protocol 
> to push out the changes.  e.g. your Unix master can push out all the 
> updated binaries to ALL the unix clients.  Pure noninteractive NBU 
> activity, no reliance on rsh whatsoever.  Doesn't matter if it's a 
> solaris master updating a MacOSX client, as long as both ends are 
> "Unix" it will work.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying.  If I have a unix server, which has
update binaries for unix, windows and macosX, will the unix server be able
to UPDATE these clients?  It sounds like you're saying that the answer would
be "yes," but I'm confused by "as long as both ends are "Unix" it will work."

> NBU is maybe a little better than what you describe.  There's no easy 
> way to view the patch level that a particular remote client is 
> running.  ("bpgetconfig -g <clientname>" comes tantalizingly 
> close...)  But if you have access to said client, the 
> netbackup/bin/version file contains that info.

What about the patchlog?
 
> I feel that this very mailing list should be cited as a significant 
> "plus" in the NetBackup column.  Lots of helpful folks with a good 
> knowledge of the product.

True enough, but the Networker mailing list is also quite good, and probably a
lot more active (more problems to resolve, maybe?  :-).

deb