I read it as "When it tells you it completed it may have only backed up
1K so is not really complete." At the time I read it I thought it meant
1K data so missed the "files". It does seem to beg for some
clarification.
It does seem it could be read as "only backed up 1000 files (or 1024
files)" OR it only backed up files of 1024 bytes in size.
The main point to the line was "so there's no data to restore".
We don't use NBU 6.0 so I can't answer it. I'd be interested if anyone
using NBU 6.0 has done test backups AND restores to verify they were
able to restore what they requested to be backed up.
-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Rob
Worman
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 6:28 PM
To: veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] backup 1K files that can't be restored? (was Re:
Fameat last.)
There is one sentence that confuses me about Ms. Fisher's
recent CW article:
"One major issue Veritas users cited with NetBackup 6.0 is
that when a backup job indicates it's complete, it often has
only backed up 1K files, so there's no data to restore. "
Whoa, that DOES sound scary. Backed up files that can't
be restored?!?
But what does that sentence really mean? Especially the
reference to "only backed up 1K files"? Is that meant to
symbolize "1000 files"?
My suspicion that there is a tiny grain of truth in the
above wording, and maybe a typo...
and that the "issue" being described here is NBU
behavior that falls squarely in the category of HARMLESS.
I think that Ms Fisher is trying to describe the way the
NBU activity monitor displays an incremental backup job
that didn't find any changed files :
-the job is listed as complete (status is 0)
-the amount of data backed up is 1KB
-the number of files backed up is zero
(and naturally, there are no files to restore...)
Note that NetBackup has behaved this way forever, as
far as I know.
Is there anyone on this list (perhaps someone who
was interviewed by Ms Fisher) who can confirm or deny
my suspicion above?
If I'm right, I think that sentence is a case of either
incompetent technical journalism, or an intentional
distortion of the facts that crosses an ethical line.
If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear more details of the
problem being described above.
thanks!
rob
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
