Veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools

2008-12-18 15:19:21
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools
From: "Martin, Jonathan" <JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com>
To: <erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT com>, <Gabriel.Rosenkoetter AT radian DOT biz>, <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:02:02 -0500
If you absolutely have to have your email and file backups on different
media then your options are as follows:

1) Use separate volume pools
2) Use separate retentions with the flag turned off to allow multiple
retentions per media
3) Use separate media servers with the flag turned off to allow media to
be written to by multiple hosts
4) Run the backups at the same time and do not allow media multiplexing

Really this is more of a configuration thing.  Since you can't use
option #1 because of a hardware limitation then you'll have to use 2,3
or 4.  I can't think of any other options.

-Jonathan
 

-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of
erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT com
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:44 PM
To: Gabriel.Rosenkoetter AT radian DOT biz; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn 
DOT edu
Cc: ddunham AT taos DOT com; minhaj.hussain AT firstinvestors DOT com
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools

I am sorry I should have clarified, it is not that the speed is slow.
It is more efficient, getting max performance out of our tape drives,
restoring different pools in parallel.

I think what I am really asking, is there anyway to specify certain
policies to be backed up by a specific collection of tapes.

Erik

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosenkoetter, Gabriel [mailto:Gabriel.Rosenkoetter AT radian DOT biz]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 2:06 PM
To: Erik Robertello; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Cc: ddunham AT taos DOT com; Minhaj Hussain
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools


On point 1, you should do exactly what Darren has already suggested:
burn some extra retention level slots (I encourage you not to change the
ones at 9 or below) on multiple copies of the same actual time of
retention. Unless you change the default configuration (and please,
don't), NetBackup will refuse to colocate images from different
retention levels (note: not necessarily different durations of
retention) on the same media.

On point 2, I think that your understanding of how NetBackup deals with
media servers' media is slightly off. Creating a pool for each media
server certainly does segregate the media that server will use, but it
doesn't buy you anything. If a tape a media server has previously used
is currently mounted by another media server (which it still could be
even with your pool configuration if, for example, you're making use of
Vault duplication or Storage Lifecycle Policies), the first media server
will simply pull a new one out of the Scratch pool, and backups will
proceed at the same speed. Have you found some problem with this that
I'm missing?


--
gabriel rosenkoetter
Radian Group Inc, Senior Systems Engineer
gabriel.rosenkoetter AT radian DOT biz, 215 231 1556


-----Original Message-----
From: erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT com
[mailto:erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT com]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:52 AM
To: ddunham AT taos DOT com; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Cc: minhaj.hussain AT firstinvestors DOT com
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools

We are using approx 15 volume pools for several reasons.

Having many pools allows us to restore different pools simultaneously at
our DR facility, getting the maximum results within our window.

This is also the case for backing up the data.  Different media servers
having their own pools is really efficient.  We have a specific backup
window that might be hard to accomplish without using pools.

We would like to utilize KMS but we have learned that we are limited to
2 pools.

We are currently running 6.5.2 and will be upgrading to 6.5.3.

Really appreciate any suggestions.
Erik



-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu]On Behalf Of A Darren
Dunham
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 11:09 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] eliminating volume pools


On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:37:05AM -0500,
erik.robertello AT firstinvestors DOT com wrote:
> My previous post should have read:
>
> I am looking to eliminate volume pools in an effort to utilized 
> hardware encryption (limited to 2 volume pools).  Is there another way

> to experience the same results of using volume pools "without" using 
> volume pools?

I guess that depends on what you're using volume pools for in the first
place.  What do you lose in your environment by removing them?

The main purpose behind them is volume segregation.  Easily preventing
certain data from being on the same volume as other data.  Ease of
reporting/identification is a plus as well.  Depending why you're doing
these (and the particulars), you might be able to come up with
alternatives.

Creative use of different retention policies (which use separate tapes
by default) and scripting for identification can help.

--
Darren
_______________________________________________
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