cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

NBU 7.0 Solaris: exclude list ignored?

alexs77
Level 3

Hello again ;)

 

I'm using NetBackup 7.0 (NetBackup-Solaris10 7.0) on a Solaris 10 Sparc system. I noticed the following messages in the log (see http://pastebin.de/11352 and also attached):

[…]

 

 11/4/2010 5:59:46 AM - Error bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: ERR - Cannot cd to /.backup/snapshots/zones/race-lics/root/root/home. Errno = 1: Nicht Eigentümer

11/4/2010 5:59:46 AM - Warning bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: WRN - Cannot cd to net. Errno = 1: Nicht Eigentümer

11/4/2010 5:59:46 AM - Error bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: ERR - Cannot cd to /.backup/snapshots/zones/race-lics/root/root/net. Errno = 1: Nicht Eigentümer

11/4/2010 5:59:46 AM - Warning bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: WRN - Cannot cd to home. Errno = 1: Nicht Eigentümer

11/4/2010 5:59:46 AM - Error bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: ERR - Cannot cd to /.backup/snapshots/zones/race-monitoring/root/root/home. Errno = 1: Nicht Eigentümer

11/4/2010 5:59:47 AM - Warning bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: WRN - Cannot cd to net. Errno = 1: Nicht Eigentümer

11/4/2010 5:59:47 AM - Error bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: ERR - Cannot cd to /.backup/snapshots/zones/race-monitoring/root/root/net. Errno = 1: Nicht Eigentümer 

[…]

And a lot more like these… "Nicht Eigentümer" means "Not owner". There's a pattern, though. I only get these for /…/home and /…/net directories. This is from a Solaris 10 system which acts as host for Non Global Zones (NGZ). In the examples above, it's from the race-monitoring and race-lics non-global zones.

What's confusing me, is that I *DO* have these "directories" in the exclude list file at /usr/openv/netbackup/exclude_list.S10_RACE (attached and at http://pastie.org/1271759); the policy is called "S10_RACE".

Why do I get these messages?

Thanks a lot,

Alexander

3 REPLIES 3

CRZ
Level 6
Employee Accredited Certified

I think we still crawl the hierarchy BEFORE we determine if something is to be skipped (so long as we haven't already matched up with an exclusion - obviously we don't crawl all the way into every nook and cranny of /proc after we've determined /proc is on the list, for example), and for whatever reason - probably something outside of NetBackup - we can't hit those particular NFS-mounted places, and bpbrm is reporting it.

What happens in bpbrm is a bit further up the chain than what happens in bpbkar, where the actual "excluded by" messages get logged.  What you might want to do is check the bpbkar log on your client, assuming the VERBOSE level is high enough, for "is_excluded" entries which will confirm that excluding is indeed happening.

These messages from the provided log intrigue me (and are also the reason you get status 1 instead of status 0):

11/4/2010 5:39:26 AM - Warning bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: WRN - /.backup/snapshots/SAN/backup/winds05/var/store is on an unavailable NFS file system. Skipping.
11/4/2010 5:40:47 AM - Warning bpbrm(pid=5824) from client winds07.win.ch.da.rtr: WRN - /.backup/snapshots/data/software/RACE is on an unavailable NFS file system. Skipping.

May I ask why you don't just exclude /.backup and save yourself all those other entries?  From the log entries above, it doesn't look like you can get to ANYTHING underneath that directory anyway...and may not want to? This may also clear up all your other messages - once NetBackup sees /.backup is skipped, it would move on...I think?

AAlmroth
Level 6
Partner Accredited

You may very well be experiencing the major bug introduced in 7.0.0 for UNIX/Linux, where NBU parses the exclude_list files in a way that you end up with backing up things you have excluded, and excluding data that should be backed up. Fixed in 7.0.1.

 

/A

CRZ
Level 6
Employee Accredited Certified

There are no wildcards in the attached exclude list.

(Although even if you're right and I'm wrong, it would still be borne out by the bpbkar log... so let's see it!  wink )