Rename Netbackup 6.x Master server

[Steve_Schuler]

We have changed our naming standards and our NBU master server is the one remaining stragler from the days when we really didn't have a server naming standard. I have been tasked with getting this sucker converted. I have seen James Dunn publish a way to do it in Unix, but not on Windows server 2003. Has anyone gone through this?

Message Edited by Steve Schuler on 09-06-2007 08:08 AM

[Stumpr2]

How large is your environment? You will need to make changes on every client. You may even have to make firewall and routing table changes along with registry changes. You also may have to change db agent scripts as well as all your home grown reorting scripts. I would try to talk management out of this request. If I absolutely had to do this then I would insist that symantec consulting be onsite for the change. It may seem expensive but it is necessary in my opinion.

And I do know a little bit about NetBackup....

Now a lab or DR site would be different. I would go ahead and make the change as it would not impact production data.

Message Edited by Bob Stump on 09-06-2007 01:28 PM

[Stumpr2]

DOCUMENTATION: Notes on changing or modifying the Master Server's host name, in regards to the following warning: Do not change the host name of a NetBackup server. This practice is not recommended because it can be necessary to import all previously used media to the server before you can use it under the new host name.

http://support.veritas.com/docs/268696

Details:

Manual:    
Veritas NetBackup DataCenter (tm) 4.5 System Administrator's Guide
Veritas NetBackup Enterprise Server (tm) 5.0 System Administrator's Guide Volume II
Veritas NetBackup Enterprise Server (tm) 5.1 System Administrator's Guide Volume II
Veritas NetBackup Enterprise Server (tm) 6.0 System Administrator's Guide Volume II

Page:  N/A

Modification Type: Supplement

Modification:
The above manuals contain the following warning:

Note:  Do not change the host name of a NetBackup server.  This practice is not recommended because it can be necessary to import all previously used media to the server before you can use it under the new host name.

Changing or modifying any NetBackup server host names must be done with extreme care, whether they be Master Servers or Media Servers.

It is highly recommended that any NetBackup Server host name changes be done through Symantec's consulting services. This is due to issues such as the server host name being appended to the images in the catalog.  Simply changing the Master Server host name can cause restores to fail, connection problems with clients and having to import all media back into the catalog.

Changing or modifying the master host name is not supported by Technical Support without the assistance of a qualified Symantec Consultant on site.

[Stumpr2]

Well? Have I done my job and adequately frightened and discouraged you?

Seriously, I am not a symantec employee or even a stock holder. I am not touting consulting nor do I gain anything by my recommendations.

And after all....what are naming "standards"?

Don't they seem to change every couple of years anyhow?

[Steve_Schuler]

We have only 200 clients, and 5 media servers. Our master is not a robot control host. All of our backup servers and clients are in the same network, so no changes to firewalls are needed. Our longest retention period is only 3 months, and that is only for monthly full backups. We wouldn't have a ton of image imports, if that is required.

[Steve_Schuler]

As far as consulting goes, they charge $15000 for the service. Yikes! it seems to me, that if they can do it, they should be able to direct us on how to do it.

[Stumpr2]

I understand. On the other hand management needs to make the decision on whether the move to the new "standard" is worth 15K. Most often, I have seen them squirm and complain but change their demand to let the current name stand as is.

They usually have a pretty hard time convincing the bean coungters that 15K is a good investment. And they have an equally hard time going against symantec's recommendations whenever there is a risk involved.

[Steve_Schuler]

I am trying to get them to see the light. I sure think it isn't worth the $$. I just figured there was a way to do it, even if it was rough.