Author: "Clem Kruger" <clem AT re-thinking-it DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:19:31 +0200
Hi All, This is exactly right. The space is not available! Let us assume that you need to write an urgent backup to a different set of tapes. Although there are tapes that have expired, you may not h
Author: "Paul Keating" <pkeating AT bank-banque-canada DOT ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:43:48 -0400
It's not as complicated as you make it sound. Like tape, you need to keep some overhead in free disk. If you want to maximize the contiguous free disk available, then you would bplable tapes as they
Author: "Clem Kruger" <clem AT re-thinking-it DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:50:53 +0200
Haha, Yes Paul, when you have made life so easy that DBA's decide they can make backups without letting the storage group know, it is not so easy. Kind Regards, Clem Kruger --Original Message-- From:
Author: "Martin, Jonathan" <JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:35:04 -0400
Per my Data Domain rep - when a DSU image expires, NBU deletes it. Data Domain's product then checks all the blocks associated with that image file and removes any that are not shared by any other ba
Author: "Martin, Jonathan" <JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:45:36 -0400
My understanding is that the "file system" is completely virtual. The file list you can pull as a CIFS or NFS share, but each file is made up of "chunks" on the back end. I think by definition dedupl
Author: "Paul Keating" <pkeating AT bank-banque-canada DOT ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:38:25 -0400
What filesystem is on the appliance? Does the app then "defrag" the small chunks of dereferenced space into contiguous chunks? Or does the next backup write to whatever chunks of free space it can fi
Author: "Curtis Preston" <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:49:32 -0400
yes, as you said, even though Netbackup expires a VT, the VTL doesn't know it's "allowed" to delete the pointers for the VT untill NBU does a bplabel on that Cart ID. Or starts writing to it from th
Author: "Curtis Preston" <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:14:40 -0400
The problem is not de-dupe; the problem is thin provisioning and oversubscription. There are a lot of VTLs that allow both (with or w/o de-dupe), and if you define more tapes than you actually have d
Author: "Liddle, Stuart" <liddles AT amgen DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 13:54:59 -0700
I think I'm beginning to understand my confusion to some of the earlier comments and now see from the conversations that are taking place that the way we are using our VTL's is vastly different from
Author: "Curtis Preston" <cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:55:32 -0400
I think you nailed it, Stu. I remember your previous posts on this topic, and that you said you went to this method because the NBU Vault method wasn't duping the tapes fast enough for you. As I reca
Author: Larry Mascarenhas <LMascare AT comcast DOT net>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:59:17 -0400
Hmm.. That's a problem. Oh well, back to the drawing board. -- Larry Mascarenhas LMascare AT comcast DOT net _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailma
Author: "Liddle, Stuart" <liddles AT amgen DOT com>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:19:33 -0700
Curtis, Yes, that is correct. I am remembering all of the PAIN associated with having NetBackup Vault make copies to physical tape. It went something like this: 1) do the backup to VTL 2) vault image
Author: "Clem Kruger" <clem AT re-thinking-it DOT com>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:38:06 +0200
Hi Stuart, We also decided to use the backend of the VTL attached to 98 and 9940's. The problem that we discovered was the one tape that was faulty and the bar codes became out of sequence. This caus