Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Running More Than 2 RMAN Channels Causes Status Code 25

I am using Netbackup 6.5 to backup my database with RMAN. If I use 2 tape channels the backup completes fine. If I use more than 2 channels, then the additional channels fail with status code 25 and the first 2 channels complete fine. I have checked name resolution and it seems to be fine. What puzzles me is that 2 channels run fine. Could this be a port blocking issue where the ports needed for more than 2 channels are being blocked? Any info is appreciated.
9 Replies

port range

Port range is same although you use more than 2 channels.
I guess your env does not configured properly allowing more than 2 channels(2 streams, in NetBackup term).
Check following attributes.

- Maximum jobs per client
- Maximum concurrent write drives
- (if you use number of streams more than drives - Multiplexing)
  Maximum streams per drive, and Media multiplexing(in schedule attribute) 

If you can not get success changing these attributes, enable debug logs on server(bprd, bpbrm) and client(vnetd, bpcd, dbclient).
Then figure out which connection was failed.

Thanks for the help.

Thanks for the help. Currently the policy is set up to have an unlimited number of jobs per client. I'm not sure what the maximum concurrent write drives are, but I do know that I currently have 9 tapes that I can write to. Is there someplace I can check to see what my max concurrent writes drives are? From what I can tell I am not multiplexing my backups.

I have enabled the logs and have have found the status code 25 in one of the logs on the media server. Can't remember which one off the top of my head, but I will check again and post whatever details I can. My setup has the client and media server on the same server and the master is located on a different server. I have not seen any errors in the logs on the master server.

Maximum concurrent write drives

"Maximum concurrent write drives" is storage unit attribute. And maximum jobs per client is found under general attribute of master server properties. It might set to some integer(1 to 99)..

I will check with our storage

I will check with our storage person to see what the maximum concurrent drives is set to. I found out that I have 100 tapes and have 9 drives so I am supposed to be able to write to 9 of them at a time. The max jobs per client was set to 5, so I changed it to 10 and I still get the error. The log I found the "cannot connect on socket error" is in the bpbrm log on the media/client server. I am unable to post the log for security reasons.


Well, this might not be matter of configuration. Maximum concurrent drives, Max jobs per client will be corrent.
It is better to call Symantec to ask their help.

I ran a test that might help

I ran a test that might help troubleshoot. I ran the RMAN backup with 2 streams and it completed successfully. I then ran RMAN with 2 streams and at the same time ran a filesystem backup from Backup, Archive, and Restore. The filesystem backup failed with statuscode 25. I then ran the filesystem backup by itsself, it started and got further but failed with status code 96. At this point I'm not worried about the 96 as I think I can fix that on my own, but it does seem like something is keeping more than 2 backups running.

OK will do. Thanks for all

OK will do. Thanks for all the help!!

If I get you right, the

If I get you right, the client being backed up is same as the DB server and the media server.

What you are experiencing sounds like a resource issue on the client (memory, free space etc)
can you check all  these please

Open file handlers

We had a similar issue and the issue we found was our max open file limit was set to default 1024 and on another server set to 131072 from where we managed to backup with 4 or more stresms without any issue.

Once we changed the settings we have been able to complete backups with 4 streams and dont see any failures. We are carrying out some more tests to see if there is something else that might need to be tweaked. But I think its worth a go to increase the limit on max open files.