Veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] Naming Conventions

2003-12-23 15:08:16
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Naming Conventions
From: WTSmith AT maine DOT edu (Wayne T Smith)
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 15:08:16 -0500
David Ashamalla wrote, in part:
> What do you all have in place for naming conventions for Policies, 
> Volume pools, and anything else configuration related.

My approximately 100 clients currently require about 25 policies.  Each 
DB agent gets it's own policy. Each Netbackup client type (Netware, Win, 
Std) gets a policy. Clients requiring a separate offsite copy get split 
to another policy.  A couple of clients with huge file systems require 
special and multiple policies (one 2, the other 5 policies). MsExchange 
gets a couple of its own policies. Vault has a policy. I've a couple of 
"test" policies.

Everyone shares one volume pool for backups. Vault has its own volume 
group as well as volume pools for data and catalog backups.

What's really important, IMHO, is to minimize the number of and plan 
schedules for various retentions, unless you have a surplus of tapes 
(also maybe unimportant if you don't MPX ... sorry for double negative).

Also, Netbackup really likes lots of buffering (see other posts on this 
list and the Netbackup newsgroups).

Finally, Netbackup is woefully short on allowing you to document your 
configuration, IMHO. This is partly due to configuration spread all over 
creation and is partly due to missing capability.  For example, policies 
don't have room to document the decisions going into each policy. 
Client configurations have no room for similar information, nor room for 
critical auxiliary information such as personal contact or billing 
information.

Ho ho ho, wayne
-- 


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