Alex

In response....

1. You say tapes with errors will be moved to the "none" pool. I was under
the
   impression they would be 'frozen' and left in their orginating Volume
Pool ?
   Can you please clarify what you mean by this.
ABSWER: Bob, can you explain this to me too :-) Because I have never seen
tapes move to NONE pool myself.

2. What is the "DataStore" Pool actually designed to be used for ?
ANSWER: I believe this is used for Datastore specific volumes. Again, not
used this!

3. You mention that cleaning tapes would go into the "None" pool. I was
origally
    thinking of creating a "CLN" pool. Bad idea ?
ANSWER: NONE Pool is what I use with a Barcode Rule of CLN

Regards

Simon Weaver
3rd Line Technical Support
Windows Domain Administrator 

EADS Astrium Limited, B32AA IM (DCS)
Anchorage Road, Portsmouth, PO3 5PU

Email: Simon.Weaver AT Astrium-eads DOT net



-----Original Message-----
From: Wilkinson, Alex [mailto:alex.wilkinson AT dsto.defence.gov DOT au] 
Sent: 26 April 2006 14:28
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Volume Pools [recommendations please]


    0n Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 12:49:25AM -0400, bob944 wrote: 

    >Alex, you'll get a dozen recommendations.  This is the right one.  :-)
    >
    >> What is "best practice" with regards to Volume Pools ?
    >> 
    >> We are thinking of using a single Volume Pool for all of our 
    >> data tapes.
    >> Is it good practice to use the "Netbackup" Volume pool for 
    >> this situation ?
    >
    >Yes to the first, no to the second.  
    >
    >Offline catalog backup tapes in NetBackup.  Everything else in
    >"dsto-mlb".
    >
    >-  "dsto-mlb" is a made-up name to suggest that you name your primary
    >pool after your datacenter (and supposing DSTO and Melbourne and that
    >you have, or may later have, other datacenters).  The intent is to have
    >a simple way to keep your DC's tapes separate from "dsto-prth"'s tapes
    >during the inevitable consolidation or other circumstance that
    >co-mingles your and foreign tapes.
    >
    >-  Practically, you'll still have a None pool (cleaning tapes, tapes
    >with errors you don't want used until you test or toss them).  And
    >probably a scratch pool, a duplicates pool or two, a duplicate catalog
    >backup pool, the goofy DataStore pool unused.  
    >
    >-  I always suggest a "test" pool.  Keeps your production pool from
    >accumulating junk test data, frees you to do any testing and expiring
    >you need to without risk of filling/tying-up/expiring production tapes.
    >Test what you want, expire the tapes when done and let them go back to
    >scratch.
    >
    >-  There _are_ reasons to have separate pools.  Find a logical division
    >_with_ a reason that justifies the administrative and operational
    >burden.
    >
    >- - Customer privacy.  Do you have two clients whose data should not be
    >mixed?  Army and Navy pools, then.  Related to this is restricting
    >access to a pool to a specified host (media server) if there's a Really
    >Good Reason to do this.
    >- - Minimizing collateral damage.  Does someone occasionally leak
    >classified info onto an unclassified system--requiring you to destroy
    >all unclassified backups which might contain it?  Subdivide in any way
    >that makes sense to minimize loss of the rest of the backups.  
    >- - Related to the above, is there a project or client whose backups
may
    >need to go elsewhere tomorrow?  Just eject all the tapes in that pool
    >and send them on their way with 100% of their info without losing any
    >that's not theirs.
    >- - And a third variation on the going-offsite theme:  Maybe a
    >given-to-legal pool for duplicating backups that go off to some other
    >entity and may not return...  
    >- - Availability assurance.  Have a really small library and need to be
    >positive there'll be enough tape for the big weekend database backup?
    >Separate, stocked-up "oracle" pool so that other backups/users can't
use
    >up those tapes.  Or a separate "user" pool if you allow user
    >backups/archives and that's the group that might use up your free space
    >(though this method loses a lot with the advent of automatic draw from
a
    >scratch pool).
    >
    >There are undoubtedly other good reasons, but if you insist that
someone
    >come up with a rationale that can't be met any other way--not just
    >something that _sounds_ logical.  It makes me crazy to see Full and
    >Incremental pools, or Unix and Windows ones.  Remember that pools are
    >another multiplier of tapes-in-use, alongside multiple media servers,
    >mux/non-mux and differen retention levels.
    >
    >You're on the right track.  Simplify.  Let the computer manage what it
    >can and save your brain for important things.

Awesome detailed reply Bob. Thank ! Much appreciated. However, I have a few
quick questions still:

1. You say tapes with errors will be moved to the "none" pool. I was under
the
   impression they would be 'frozen' and left in their orginating Volume
Pool ?
   Can you please clarify what you mean by this.

2. What is the "DataStore" Pool actually designed to be used for ?

3. You mention that cleaning tapes would go into the "None" pool. I was
origally
    thinking of creating a "CLN" pool. Bad idea ?

Cheers and thanks to everyone who is responding. Please keep your opinions
and ideas flowing in. I am _very_ interested !

 -aW
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu

This email is for the intended addressee only.
If you have received it in error then you must not use, retain, disseminate or 
otherwise deal with it.
Please notify the sender by return email.
The views of the author may not necessarily constitute the views of EADS 
Astrium Limited.
Nothing in this email shall bind EADS Astrium Limited in any contract or 
obligation.

EADS Astrium Limited, Registered in England and Wales No. 2449259
Registered Office: Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, SG1 2AS, England