Backup Jobs Keep on getting QUEUED and not running (BE 2014)

[pxtian]

Hi,

I have again run into a problem after merging all the Tape Drive connections to one BackupExec 2014 Server. When I run jobs, they are only queued and won't run.

The jobs used to work with this setup:

DELL ML6000 library partitioned into 2.

Partition 1 - uses LTO3s SCSI Drives connected to another BE SERVER (2010) Version

Partition 2 - uses LTO5 SAS Drives connected to this BE SERVER (2014)

Now the jobs stopped working with this new setup:

DELL ML6000 library partitioned into 2. (no change made)

Partition 1 - uses LTO3s SCSI Drives connected to this BE SERVER (2014)

Partition 2 - uses LTO5s SAS Drives connectd to the same BE SERVER (2014)

So basically, all I did was insert a SCSI Card on the BE SERVER 2014 and plug the SCSI control path drive to it. So instead of 2 separate servers, all are now connected just to one BE 2014 Server. Nothing was changed on the partition or control paths. All drives were detected immediately. I have powercycled both the Server and the library. I have created jobs to point specifically to each library and still I get only queued jobs.

Was I supposed to configure something INSIDE the BE 2014 console to make this work?

As always, any help is appreciated. Thanks.

[Larry_Fine]

Both control paths get non-exclusive access to the robotic arm.

Handling and queueing the requests for the robotic arm is the duty of the library firmware.  When there are multiple control paths and multiple hardware partitions, it is possible that a request to the robotic arm may be delayed or queued very briefly.  As the OP stated, this worked fine previously with 2 BE servers sharing the duties of the robotic arm and I think it should work with a single BE server.
 

[pkh]

Precisely, one path per server. Not two paths to one server If you have two servers sharing a tape library then you need need something, like SSO, to decide which server gets to use the tape library at which time.

[pxtian]

Hi,

So after about 2 weeks of testing, this seems to be going well. At the moment, I have not had the time to implement bar code rules as suggested. I will have to try that at a later time. Thanks again everyone for the help and suggestions!!