Does anyone know the format of a -Bidfile?

[Andrew_Madsen]

I am trying to run a replication using nbreplicate. The command I am sending is nbreplicate -Bidfile bidfile -slp_name slp -cn 1. In the Bidfile I have 10 images listed one per line:

uswisuxdb9_1394402400

uswisuxgen5_1394402401

uswislxtaa001_1394402402

uswistag001_1394402415

uswistag001_1394402416

uswisres024_1394402418

The command will process the first image and then bomb out on the second with a 227 Image not found. If I edit the file and remove the first image it will then process the second image (which is now the first in the list) and then bomb out on the third. It is almost like it can only process the first entry bvecause there is no continuation character or something.

[Marianne]

Weird.

NBU 7.6 Commands manual says:

-Bidfile file_name
file_name specifies a file that contains a list of backup IDs to be duplicated.
List one backup ID per line in the file. If this parameter is specified, other
selection criteria are ignored.
Also, file_name is removed during the execution of that command line interface
(CLI) because the NetBackup GUIs commonly use this parameter. They expect
the command-line interface to remove the temporary file that was used for the
-Bidfile option upon completion. Direct command-line interface users can
also use the option; however, it removes the file.

If you vi the file and type
:set list

Do you see a $ at the end of each line?
No space after image-id?
No blank lines?

uswisuxdb9_1394402400$
uswisuxgen5_1394402401$
uswislxtaa001_1394402402$
uswistag001_1394402415$

If it looks like above list, I would say that you may have identified a bug...

[mph999]

Hi Andrew,

Can you confirm what you are trying to do.  My understanding is that you are trying to make a replication of an images(s) that have not been replicated yet ?

So, you are going left-to-right ...

(Prod) Source --> (DR) Dest

Or, are you trying to re-do a previous successful replication ?

[Andrew_Madsen]

Thanks Marianne

That was the first thing I did. It looked right.

Yes I too saw the npduplicate command information which was why I grabbed the -Bidfile flag because then I could set up batching images instead of doing them one by one. We may have a code bug or a documentation bug. I am working with Symantec now.

[Andrew_Madsen]

What I am trying to saccomplish is replicate images that had been replicated to the wrong domain. This is so I can repourpose the PDDO they are on. So the replication is like this:

DR(Source) --> (Different DR) target.

[Andrew_Madsen · Accepted solution]

OK I found the answer.

The -Bidfile is indeed a single image per line. The issue I was having was the failure to use a semi-undocumented flag -target_sts. I say semi-undocumented because when you run nbreplicate -help it does not show up and when you look in the command reference guide it does not show up in the usage section nor the flag explanation section but it does show up in the example section.

One of the RPS techs working the case(s) we have open stumbled across this and gave me an answer.

BEWARE: Even though the command is present in /usr/openv/netbackup/bin/admin and is in the commands reference guide and is expressly used in TECH205923 I have had backline engineers try to say it is not supported. It is a handy tool but it could use some documentation help and recognition. Again It work to replicate something back to the original source but it also works well for replicating to a third domain.

[mph999]

I am pleased you found a solution, apologies, I have been snowed under and couldn't get back to this.

Technically, BL are correct.  nbreplicate is intended to duplicate back from the target if the original source is lost, not for making an additionally copy to a third domain.  You could argue perhaps, why not, and that may well be a valid point, and perhaps in this instance the documentation could be reviewed.

My understanding, and perhaps it is wrong, is that commands not documented in the man page are unsupported, again, not saying this is correct, just trying to give an explanation as to why you were told what you were.  However, you mention it is given as an example, but no explanation which should be corrected, one way or the other.

I'll mention this to one of the Appliance/ MSDP / PD BLs when I next see him, there might be an oppotuinty to have the documetation changed.  

[Andrew_Madsen]

Thanks for the reply, Martin. If the command is intended to be used to duplicate back then that needs to be expressly stated. They went to a lot of pains to state that certain configurations were NOT SUPPORTED so if replicating to a third site should be noted that way. And of course I will ignore it since this is really NIFTY.  

[mph999]

I'm fairly sure we cover this, however, unhelpfully, from memory, it's on an internal technote.

I'll look to see if we can make the TN public and get something in the manual.

'Unsupported' is a painful word.  Sommeties, for example when talking about hardware, it can simply mean it hasn't yet been tested, and thus, something can work 100% fine when 'unsupported', and then one day it magically becomes supported when testing has been completed.

Other reasons for unsupported:

'We' don't want somme commands, or options of some commands run outside the scope of techncally support as they can be damaging.  These options/ commands generally are not mentioned in man pages /manuals.

Sometimes, quite simply we don't know what will happen if xx is run or yy is set up in such a manner.  As you will understand, there are so many possibilites of x,y and z coming togther in an environment it is not possible to be aware of what will happen in every situation.  This sounds unhelpful and negative, but every now and then you come across an issue and after struggling to get your head around it, you think 'they've done what !!!'  , at which point tears fill your eyes and your head sinks slowly towards your desk ...

Anyway, back to your issue, If you logged a call for your issue could you post up the case number, just makes it easier for things to happen if there is a case I can qoute/ refer to.

Many thanks,

Martin

[CRZ]

Poking around the etracks, there ARE documentation updates for this command planned (Martin: check out  Etrack 3283894), but it looks like some of those command line options STILL won't be included, including the one you've previously referenced...but we'll try to do an overall job of explaining the command better in the next version of the Commands Guide. 

[mph999]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the details, I'll check out the eTrack as you advise.

Many thanks,

M