Backup Exec 2010 R2 device priorities broken?

[mcheer]

Hi All,

I wish to create 2 device pools with the same 2 tape drives in each; one with Tape1 as higher priority and the other with Tape2 as higher. However, changing the priority of Tape1 in Pool1 also changes the priority of Tape1 (the same drive) in Pool2. This is in complete contrast to the following documentation:

Devices can belong to more than one device pool. Device pools can contain different types of devices, including specific devices in multi-device robotic libraries.

You can assign priorities to devices in a device pool so that a specific device is used before other devices in the device pool. The priority assigned to a device in one device pool is unrelated to that device's priority in any other device pool. For example, if Device 1 is placed in both Device Pool A and Device Pool B, you can assign different priorities to it in each device pool. Device 1 can have a high priority in Device Pool A and a low priority in Device Pool B.

Am I doing something wrong, or is it simply broken? Whilst searching for this fault, I see that device priorities have always seemed to be problematic.

I'm running Backup Exec 2010 v13.0 Rev. 4164 (64-bit) with SP1 and all available Hotfixes (as of 11/04/2011).

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Many thanks.

[mcheer]

Nobody? No one using device priorities in this manner?

[CraigV · Accepted solution]

Hi there,

Try running a repair on your BEDB through BEutility and then checking if this issue still exists after it.

If it does, try recreating the device priorities...either way, post back here with an update.

Thanks!

[mcheer]

CraigV... thank you very much, I do believe that has done the trick!

One less problem!

Cheers.

[mcheer]

Hmmm - I was a bit hasty. It appears that this has resolved the priority settings, however, the priority seems to be ignored. Several backups have confirmed that the pool used the device with priority 10... and not the one with priority 5. Quality.

[Kiran_Bandi]

Can you confirm that you targetted job to device pool not to that particular device with priority 10?

Regards..........

[mcheer]

Gidday,

Yes, I definitely targetted the pool. Unfortunately, I don't get to test it very often because the number of backups means they're running virtually 24x7. I'll keep an eye on it and try and test again. It was interesting in that all 3 or 4 tests, the device chosen was the lowest number priority; i.e. as if the documentation has it back-to-front and 1 has higher priority over 10? Of course, this was probably just random brokenness!