This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3037E.FF1143B0
Content-Type: text/plain
I keep DB data & Unix filesystems separate, just for adminstrative issues -
I like knowing how many tapes are being used to store Oracle data. I keep
Windows & Unix separate, too.
I can think of no technical reason that data can't be mixed regardless of
Unix/Oracle/Windows, though.
That being said, I suggest you don't separate by barcode but instead keep
them in separate tape pools. Unless you're buying tapes out of different
budgets, drawing new tapes from a common scratch pool will be more efficient
than pre-allocating tapes to various OS's. Put all your tapes in a common
scratch pool that'll be drawn from whenever any new tape is needed and then
assigned to the appropriate pool on demand.
Netbackup will, by default*, keep tapes separate by retention so your
infinite retention stuff is not really mixing with your "regular expiration"
stuff anyway. I'd keep them in the same pool if they're the same servers
let Netbackup separate your retentions for you.
$.02
-M
*turning off this feature is a bad idea unless you're doing backups to a
non-library device.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathryn Riddlemoser [mailto:kathy AT mitre DOT org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 12:14 PM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools and Barcode Rules
I work with a bunch of people that are use to doing things one way and I
think
it's time to make a change. I'd like your opinion.
We currently have a few barcode rules associated with a bunch of different
volume pools. The idea is not to mix Windows data with Unix data on the
same
tape. Also, not to mix Unix with AFS on the same tape. Of course AFS runs
on the unix box. Then there are those special servers that can use the same
barcode rule but should not share tapes.
Here's a few examples:
Barcode Pool
UXA................Unix_Archive
UXI..................Unix_Incremental
UXA................AFS_Archive
UXI..................AFS_Incremental
WNA..............Windows_Archive
WNI................Windows_Incremental
WNA..............SpecialServer_Archive
WNI................SpecialServer_Incremental
Here's what I think we should do:
Barcode Pool
A0000# NetBackup
Let everything go to the same tape. Scheduled full backups with a retention
level of Infinity will not share the same tape as scheduled incremental
backups with a regular expiration. So there is no need to have an Archive
pool and an Incremtal pool. I see no reason not to backup Unix and AFS to
the
same tape, so there goes more pools.
My co-workers say, Unix and Windows should not backup to the same tapes
because their backup format differs (tar versus winzip). Bottom line...
NetBackup uses tar so I don't think it matters. Agree??
Appreciate any opinions on this matter.
Regards
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3037E.FF1143B0
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2653.12">
<TITLE>RE: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools and Barcode Rules</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I keep DB data & Unix filesystems separate, just =
for adminstrative issues - I like knowing how many tapes are being used =
to store Oracle data. I keep Windows & Unix separate, =
too.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I can think of no technical reason that data can't be =
mixed regardless of Unix/Oracle/Windows, though.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>That being said, I suggest you don't separate by =
barcode but instead keep them in separate tape pools. Unless =
you're buying tapes out of different budgets, drawing new tapes from a =
common scratch pool will be more efficient than pre-allocating tapes to =
various OS's. Put all your tapes in a common scratch pool that'll =
be drawn from whenever any new tape is needed and then assigned to the =
appropriate pool on demand.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Netbackup will, by default*, keep tapes separate by =
retention so your infinite retention stuff is not really mixing with =
your "regular expiration" stuff anyway. I'd keep them =
in the same pool if they're the same servers let Netbackup separate =
your retentions for you.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>$.02</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>-M</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>*turning off this feature is a bad idea unless you're =
doing backups to a non-library device.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>-----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>From: Kathryn Riddlemoser [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:kathy AT mitre DOT org">mailto:kathy AT mitre DOT org</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 12:14 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Subject: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools and Barcode =
Rules</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I work with a bunch of people that are use to doing =
things one way and I think</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>it's time to make a change. I'd like your =
opinion.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>We currently have a few barcode rules associated with =
a bunch of different</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>volume pools. The idea is not to mix Windows =
data with Unix data on the same</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>tape. Also, not to mix Unix with AFS on =
the same tape. Of course AFS runs</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>on the unix box. Then there are those special =
servers that can use the same</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>barcode rule but should not share tapes.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Here's a few examples:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>Barcode &n=
bsp; Pool</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>UXA................Unix_Archive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>UXI..................Unix_Incremental</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>UXA................AFS_Archive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>UXI..................AFS_Incremental</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>WNA..............Windows_Archive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>WNI................Windows_Incremental</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>WNA..............SpecialServer_Archive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>WNI................SpecialServer_Incremental</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Here's what I think we should do:</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Barcode =
Pool</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>A0000# =
NetBackup</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Let everything go to the same tape. Scheduled =
full backups with a retention</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>level of Infinity will not share the same tape as =
scheduled incremental</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>backups with a regular expiration. So there is =
no need to have an Archive</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>pool and an Incremtal pool. I see no reason =
not to backup Unix and AFS to the</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>same tape, so there goes more pools.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>My co-workers say, Unix and Windows should not =
backup to the same tapes</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>because their backup format differs (tar versus =
winzip). Bottom line...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>NetBackup uses tar so I don't think it =
matters. Agree??</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Appreciate any opinions on this matter.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Regards</FONT>
</P>
<BR>
<P><FONT =
SIZE=3D2>_______________________________________________</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Veritas-bu maillist - =
Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2><A =
HREF=3D"http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu"; =
TARGET=3D"_blank">http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas=
-bu</A></FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3037E.FF1143B0--
|
