09-30-2010 04:38 AM
I find it extremely interesting that as an industry leader in clustering, and priding ourselves on being able to cluster almost any application without the need for “cluster-aware” Microsoft nonsense, why we chose to make NBU “cluster-aware” i.e. having failover and non-failover installation types.
It really is a pain in the backside having to convert from the one to the other as it requires PS, and a change of name for the master server (unless of course you run merge util twice….but who has time to do that)
Your thoughts?
09-30-2010 04:48 AM
Agree 100%.
I completed a questionnaire at Vision Las Vegas (Apr 2010) where I put the need to change NBU from non-clustered to clustered and vice versa at the top of my wish list.
Hopefully there were more users that felt the same as me and that SOMEONE at Symantec is listening.....
09-30-2010 04:52 AM
Exactly, can't we just have NetBackup, plain old NetBackup who doesn't know or care if its clustered or not. I mean who really cares, we do it for all other applications without an issue!
09-30-2010 05:13 AM
You and I have both been working with SF/HA and NBU for at least 10 years.
Every single Database and Application Agent Guide contains a chapter that explains how to convert an existing installation from non-clustered to clustered.
I have personally done it for Oracle, SQL and even Exchange. Just NBU that cannot be done! How on earth does that make sense??
Even adding or removing a node to an existing cluster is not documented. I have recently figured out a way to this with NBU 6.5 and VCS 5.0 MP3 on Solaris (still contemplating writing a Blog or Article, but there are so many variables, depending on the environment...)
If you post this requirement as an IDEA we will all vote!
(PS - Pls have a look at this Idea that I've posted recently -
https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/idea/need-ssh-clusterconfig
Sure you will agree..)
09-30-2010 05:24 AM
Haha, i already did it :p