we did the Veritas SQL agent thing and found it was
more trouble then it was worth with creating all these
scripts on each server and having job failing or
missing databases. So now we useSQL LiteSpeed to
compress the database up to about 75% of it origianl
size and then write it to disk and this works great
cause it makes the DBA's happy since it intergates
with the native SQL tool and us since it does not take
as long to backp or take up a lot of extra disk space.
cost is about the same as the SQl Agent too.
http://www.imceda.com/
Andrew
--- veritas-bu-request AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu wrote:
> Send Veritas-bu mailing list submissions to
> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
>
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> veritas-bu-request AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Veritas-bu digest..."
>
> > Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: How do Storage groups need to be set up?
> (Brown, Russell X -ND)
> 2. SQL agent backups (Paul Keating)
> 3. Re: Dual port HBA - 1 port disk, 1 port
> tape...good or bad? (Ed Wilts)
> 4. Re: Dual port HBA - 1 port disk, 1 port
> tape...good or bad? (Charles Ballowe)
> 5. RE: Dual port HBA - 1 port disk, 1 port
> tape...good or bad? (Paul Keating)
> 6. Media removed from media manager(expired)
> (Pablo Malheiros Almeida)
> 7. Re: Important -About Veritas Netbackup
> Security??? (Dean)
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:13:13 -0700
> From: "Brown, Russell X -ND"
> <Russell.X.Brown.-ND AT disney DOT com>
> To: <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> CC: <bobbyrjw AT bellsouth DOT net>
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] RE: How do Storage groups need
> to be set up?
>
> The purpose of a Storage Group is to give you the
> ability to write to a
> specified group of Storage Units. A Storage Group
> that contained All
> Storage Units would be the same as selecting Any
> Available in a backup
> Policy.
>
> When the Policy runs, you will still see the backup
> go to one of the
> Storage Units in the Storage Unit Group.
>
> An example of where a Storage Group is beneficial is
> if you have
> multiple Media Servers on a single subnet. You
> could create a Storage
> Group for the xxx Subnet that has Storage Units from
> Media Server 1 and
> Media Server 2 who both have NICs on the xxx Subnet.
> When the backup
> runs, the data will go to either MS1 or MS2.
>
> Another example would be a Storage Group for a Media
> Server that has
> multiple Robots attached. Since a Storage Unit can
> only contain 1
> robot, if you have more than one Robot attached to
> your server you'll
> need to create multiple Storage Units. Example -
> let's say you've got 3
> LTO-2 tape drives in Robot 1 on SAN Fabric A and 3
> LTO-2 tape drives in
> Robot 2 on SAN Fabric B. If you want all of those
> Storage Units to be
> available for a backup Policy, you should create a
> Storage Group with
> both Storage Units in it.
>
> Russell
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Message: 8
> From: <bobbyrjw AT bellsouth DOT net>
> To: <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:16:01 -0400
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] How do Storage groups need to
> be set up?
>
> In trying to configure and use a storage group, it
> seems that the
> backups continue to go to the individual storage
> units.
>
> Master is Solaris 8, NB 4.5FP8. Media servers are 1
> Sun, 1 Win2k. ADIC
> 10K library with 20 LTO-2 drives.
>
> If you are going to use a storage group set up, do
> you make sure that no
> policies are using "Any Available"?
>
> Do you start to specifically assign the storage
> groups to each policy?
>
> I really can't find any "good" documentation about
> correctly configuring
> a storage group. The docs just say to do it, but
> not what to do with
> it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:19:44 -0400
> From: "Paul Keating"
> <pkeating AT bank-banque-canada DOT ca>
> To: "Veritas List"
> <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] SQL agent backups
>
> Been looking into deploying SQL agent now, vs
> stopping DB's to back em
> up cold.
>
> In previous environments I've worked with the Oracle
> Agents on machines
> that were "borderline" on disk capacity, and the DB
> server spawned the
> backup jobs, and look out if one failed cuz the
> fertilizer would hit the
> ventilator......they had enough disk to run about 5
> hours without a
> backup to flush logs.
>
> In my current environment, we're implementing a
> couple SQL servers that
> will have 100+ Gig DBs, so dumping to disk to backup
> is pretty much out
> of the question due to disk space, but if I were to
> install SQL agents,
> how would that affect my, otherwise busy, Netbackup
> environment?
>
> Can I still control, from the master, when jobs will
> start (I'm not
> talking backup windows, but rather scheduling jobs)
> Server initiated, vs client initiated backups, if
> you will.
> I'm under the impression that the client starts the
> job, which I suppose
> is true for ANY client, though "normal" backups are
> started when
> directed by the master.
> I guess I was under the impression that the backup
> schedul for SQL agent
> had to be configured via the client, vs via the
> master.
>
> Also, if a SQL server agent job queues, will it
> happily sit in the queue
> untill resources become available? as if it were a
> fileserver? or do
> agent jobs have to get to tape FAST.
>
> Any input would be appreciated.
>
> Paul
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:28:18 -0500
> From: Ed Wilts <ewilts AT ewilts DOT org>
> To: "Jack L. Forester, Jr."
> <jack.l.forester AT lmco DOT com>
> CC: Veritas List <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Dual port HBA - 1 port
> disk, 1 port tape...good or bad?
>
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 11:09:19AM -0400, Jack L.
> Forester, Jr. wrote:
> > Now, to get to my point, I'm aware that it's
> usually considered bad form
> > to put tape and disk on the same port of an HBA.
> What about tape and
> > disk on different ports of the same HBA? I would
> guess that if the card
> > has sufficient bandwidth and the ports are truly
> independent of each
> > other (not sharing any settings) that this
> configuration would be OK.
>
> Generally speaking, you should not mix tape and disk
> but that doesn't
> mean it won't work or give you adequate performance.
> We mix disk and
> tape on the same HBA here (we used to be separated
> but eventually
> collpased the SANs).
>
> One of thoughts is that not only is mixing disk and
> tape on the same HBA
> is suboptimal, but ideally you should use cards from
> different vendors.
> That allows you the flexibility to have separate
> configuration files and
> to unload the driver if you need to.
>
> There's ideal, and then there's reality...
>
> --
> Ed Wilts, Mounds View, MN, USA
> mailto:ewilts AT ewilts DOT org
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:46:04 -0500
> From: Charles Ballowe <cballowe AT gmail DOT com>
> To: Veritas List <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Dual port HBA - 1 port
> disk, 1 port tape...good or bad?
>
> keep in mind that the bandwidth limits on a 32 bit,
> 33Mhz PCI bus are
> 132 MB/sec. That's the biggest limit I run into in
> my backup
> environment, and someone else mentioned it. That's
> the agregate for
> all devices on the bus. If you have a network card
> and modern tape
> technology, you can pretty much max out that bus
> bandwidth with just
> the network reads and tape writes. On one of my
> media servers, I'm
> quite happy if I get 40MB/sec in from the network
> and write (inline
> tape copy) that out to 2 tape drives. That's pushing
> the bus at
> 120MB/sec.
>
> -Charlie
>
> On 7/27/05, Jack L. Forester, Jr.
> <jack.l.forester AT lmco DOT com> wrote:
> > I may be getting some new HBAs to put into my
> master servers. They
> > would be dual port cards. Presently, my tape
> devices are on an older
> > JNI HBA which requires me to reboot the server
> (Sun E450) to add
> > devices. As an additional bonus, the new HBAs
> would be 2Gb with the old
> > ones 1Gb. I'm considering moving the tapes to the
> new HBA. However,
> > the main reason we are going to get the HBAs is to
> attach to our
> > enterprise SAN for disk storage.
> >
> > Now, to get to my point, I'm aware that it's
> usually considered bad form
> > to put tape and disk on the same port of an HBA.
> What about tape and
> > disk on different ports of the same HBA? I would
> guess that if the card
> > has sufficient bandwidth and the ports are truly
> independent of each
> > other (not sharing any settings) that this
> configuration would be OK.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > Jack L. Forester, Jr.
> > UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
> > Lockheed Martin Information Technology
> > (304) 625-3946
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Veritas-bu maillist -
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> >
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> >
>
> > Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] Dual port HBA - 1 port
> disk, 1 port tape...good or bad?
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:06:43 -0400
> From: "Paul Keating"
> <pkeating AT bank-banque-canada DOT ca>
> To: "Veritas List"
> <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
>
> What's a good way around this???
> Cheap appliance type Media servers? Like V210s with
> a couple of HBAs to
> interface to banks of tape drives.
> 4x LTO2 or 2x LTO3 or something per V210 with a dual
> port 2gb HBA
>
> I currently have 8 LTO2 drives on two 2gb HBAs, in a
> v880 with dual gigE
> cards.
>
> However, I know my bottleneck is the 2gb DWDM link
> between my sites (4
> tapes in a library on each side of the DWDM link)
>
> Writing two tape at a time, using ITC.
>
> Paul
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> > [mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu]
> On Behalf Of
> > Charles Ballowe
> > Sent: July 27, 2005 2:46 PM
> > To: Veritas List
> > Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Dual port HBA - 1 port
> disk, 1 port
> > tape...good or bad?
> >
> >
> > keep in mind that the bandwidth limits on a 32
> bit, 33Mhz PCI bus are
> > 132 MB/sec. That's the biggest limit I run into in
> my backup
> > environment, and someone else mentioned it. That's
> the agregate for
> > all devices on the bus. If you have a network card
> and modern tape
> > technology, you can pretty much max out that bus
> bandwidth with just
> > the network reads and tape writes. On one of my
> media servers, I'm
> > quite happy if I get 40MB/sec in from the network
> and write (inline
> > tape copy) that out to 2 tape drives. That's
> pushing the bus at
> > 120MB/sec.
> >
> > -Charlie
> >
> > On 7/27/05, Jack L. Forester, Jr.
> <jack.l.forester AT lmco DOT com> wrote:
> > > I may be getting some new HBAs to put into my
> master servers. They
> > > would be dual port cards. Presently, my tape
> devices are
> > on an older
> > > JNI HBA which requires me to reboot the server
> (Sun E450) to add
> > > devices. As an additional bonus, the new HBAs
> would be 2Gb
> > with the old
> > > ones 1Gb. I'm considering moving the tapes to
> the new HBA.
> > However,
> > > the main reason we are going to get the HBAs is
> to attach to our
> > > enterprise SAN for disk storage.
> > >
> > > Now, to get to my point, I'm aware that it's
> usually
> > considered bad form
> > > to put tape and disk on the same port of an HBA.
> What
> > about tape and
> > > disk on different ports of the same HBA? I
> would guess
> > that if the card
> > > has sufficient bandwidth and the ports are truly
> independent of each
> > > other (not sharing any settings) that this
> configuration
> > would be OK.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jack L. Forester, Jr.
> > > UNIX Systems Administrator, Stf
> > > Lockheed Martin Information Technology
> > > (304) 625-3946
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Veritas-bu maillist -
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> > >
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Veritas-bu maillist -
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> >
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> >
> >
>
> > From: "Pablo Malheiros Almeida"
> <pabloa AT spcbrasil.org DOT br>
> To: <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:37:52 -0300
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] Media removed from media
> manager(expired)
>
> I have a backup on my company but im having some
> problems on expired midias.
> For example, I have 20 slots including the cleaning
> tape. In the slot 19 i
> have a new media (GSI850) that was not used yet and
> its in the media
> manager. I started a backup full of my database and
> the netbackup mounted
> the first media (the new one), but i forgot to set
> the privilegies to the
> files, so i kill the backup. In the report of the
> netbackup, after the kill,
> it expired the media without using it. So now i have
> a new media expired
> that is not in the Netbackup media list and
> according to the message, the
> media was removed from media manager
> database(expired). when i try to change
> the expire date, i got the following error:
>
> # ./bpexpdate -d 0 -ev GSI850
> Are you SURE you want to delete GSI850 y/n (n)? y
> requested media id was not found in NB media
> database and/or MM volume
> database
>
>
> After i kill the backup, when i got the message
> that my media got expired,
> these where the messages that was in the report of
> the Netbackup:
>
> 1122480360 1 4 16 galileu 479 0 0 galileu bpsched
> backup of client galileu
> exited with status 150 (termination requested by
> administrator)
> 1122480360 1 4 16 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpsched
> scheduler exiting -
> termination requested by administrator (150)
> 1122480362 1 4 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpsched
> cleaning image DB
> 1122480363 1 2 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpdbm Deleting
> Expired Images
> 1122480363 1 2 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpdbm not
> deleting
> <ORCL_FULL_1122479918_FULL> because pid 14062 active
> 1122480363 1 2 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpdbm deleted
> 0 expired records,
> compressed 0, tir removed 0, indexed 0, deleted 0
> expired copies
> 1122480363 1 4 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpsched
> cleaning media DB(s)
> --- > 1122480364 1 130 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bptm
> media id GSI850 removed
> from media manager database (expired)
> 1122480364 1 4 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpsched
> running session_notify
> 1122480364 1 4 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpsched
> performing database backup
> 1122480364 1 4 4 galileu 0 0 0 *NULL* bpsched
> skipping database backup -- no
> successful backups/archives; backup_when = after any
> successful
> backup/archive
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 12:01:25 +1000
> From: Dean <dean.deano AT gmail DOT com>
> To: Charles Ballowe <cballowe AT gmail DOT com>
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Important -About Veritas
> Netbackup Security???
> CC: "Grover,Samuel" <Samuel.Grover AT cna DOT com>, Ra pa
> <kpr_faq AT yahoo DOT com>,
> veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
> I believe it affects both Backup Exec, and several
> versions of NetBackup
> Netware Media Server ....
> http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14019
>
>
> On 7/28/05, Charles Ballowe <cballowe AT gmail DOT com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I think the veritas flaw mentioned is the one in
> this article:
> > http://www.technewsworld.com/rsstory/44353.html
> >
> > The flaw is in Backup Exec, not NetBackup.
> >
> > That doesn't mean NetBackup is completely in the
> clear - just that if
> > there's a flaw it's not an exposed flaw.
> >
> > But -- you need to keep your media servers locked
> down pretty well.
> > Consider the power of commands like bpinst and
> bpgp.
> >
> > -Charlie
> >
> > On 7/27/05, Grover,Samuel <Samuel.Grover AT cna DOT com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > The corporate firewall keeps people out.. if
> someone gets in through the
> > > firewall on port 13782, I'd say my network
> security folks have a
> > > problem.
> > >
> > > Sam Grover
> > > CNA Financial
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> > > [mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu]
> On Behalf Of Ra pa
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 9:38 AM
> > > To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> > > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Important -About Veritas
> Netbackup Security???
> > >
> > >
> > > I found this article on cnn technology.
> > >
> > >
>
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/07/25/hackers.backup.software.reut
> > > /index.html
> > >
> > > Will you guys provide some of your thoughts
> about
> > > securing netbackup environment, How to protect
> gaining
> > > someone access from client port to master..etc
> > >
> > > Any input will be much appreciate
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > =kpr=
> > >
> > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Veritas-bu maillist -
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> > >
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> > >
> > > E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of
> this e-mail message and
> > any attachments are intended solely for the
> > > addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or
> legally privileged
> > information. If you are not the
> > > intended recipient of this message or if this
> message has been addressed
> > to you in error, please
> > > immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and
> then delete this
> > message and any attachments. If you
> > > are not the intended recipient, you are notified
> that any use,
> > dissemination, distribution, copying, or
> > > storage of this message or any attachment is
> strictly prohibited.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Veritas-bu maillist -
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> > >
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Veritas-bu maillist -
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> >
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist -
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
>
R. Andrew Johnson
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
|
