bpduplicate file read failed 13

[GlenG]

Netbackup master/media is 6.5.4 on Solaris 10 X86

I have a reporting script that uses the bpduplicate command to retreive details about completed backups.  The script has been working for several years (first on NBU 5, and the last year on 6.5.4).

Today I get a status 13 on one of our 38 policies. The other policies return the expected data.

/opt/openv/netbackup/bin/admincmd/bpduplicate -PM -primary -s 01/03/05 -policy ClorthoPolicy
INF - unexpected return value from db_IMAGEreceive: file read failed 13
 

The first time I noticed the problem there was a backup running from that policy.  That backup has finished but I still get the error

Any ideas what to look for?

Thanks,

Glen

[Andy_Welburn · Accepted solution]

& indications are that it could be corrupt or bad image headers?

The following do not relate to duplications but are reading from the image database which is relevant here:

http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH128330
http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH30784

Here are some T/N's specifically about bad image headers:

http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH7334
http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH18438
http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH73003

[GlenG]

Andy,

Sorry about talking so long to update.

The info and links were very helpful.

For the record I used Resolution 2 from http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH73003  (I tried Resolution 1 but received a "no entity was found" error).

Thanks again the for quick and useful reply.

Glen

[Andy_Welburn]

Glad to help you get a resolution, we had bad image headers some time back altho' can't remember the resolution we used.

As an aside, strangely using the link you provided in your post results in the following 'error':
"The URL you've tried isn't returning content. There are two possibilities:...."

whereas the corresponding link from my post provides the correct content.

The strangeness here is that the URL in the browser for both pages is exactly the same!