06-12-2008 06:53 AM
06-13-2008 12:50 AM
06-14-2008 12:57 PM
06-16-2008 07:24 AM
06-16-2008 10:43 AM
06-16-2008 12:56 PM
06-17-2008 12:04 AM
06-17-2008 12:05 AM
06-17-2008 06:48 AM
07-17-2008 01:29 AM
Ron Cohn,
at first thanks for your help.
You are right, my primary backup is to disk. Then i use Vault and duplicate the B2D images to tape. I think it is not the problem of frament size of a storage unit, because the vault has nothing together with the originaly storage unit of a backuped client.
The problem is still actuall. I have two duplication child jobs. One of them has two images and the other one all another. Any ideas???
ruffy
07-17-2008 10:51 AM
@ruffy wrote:
I think it is not the problem of frament size of a storage unit, because the vault has nothing together with the originaly storage unit of a backuped client.
The problem is still actuall. I have two duplication child jobs. One of them has two images and the other one all another. Any ideas???
ruffy
Ruffy,
The Vault process has everything to do with how images are stored on the VTL - especially if multiplexing to the VTL. For example on the VTL, tape #001 contains image_001, image_002, image_003. Tape #002 contains image_001, image_003, image_004.
When you start the vault process, it goes to tape #001 and gets the image_001. BUT, it knows that image_001 is also on tape #002. It will dismount tape #001, mount tape #002 and continue vaulting image_001. Once that is completed, it dismounts tape #002, mounts tape #001 and proceeds to image_002. Since it is contained strictly on tape #001 - no problem. Then it vaults image_003. Again, it performs the same process as it did for image_001. This is what will kill you when vaulting. There is a fine line in trying to optimize writing to the VTL AND using Vault.
Because of the possible mounts / dismounts (even virtually), fragment size is very important. If you did set fragment size, then going back to my example, when mounting tape #001 to begin vaulting image_002, NetBackup is going to have to scan tape #001 from the begining to get to image_002 starting point.
07-17-2008 05:58 PM
Because of the possible mounts / dismounts (even virtually), fragment size is very important. If you did set fragment size, then going back to my example, when mounting tape #001 to begin vaulting image_002, NetBackup is going to have to scan tape #001 from the begining to get to image_002 starting point.
The sentence should have read:
"If you did NOT set fragment size..."
07-20-2008 01:36 PM
Instead of vaulting why you dont try using Storage Lifecycle Policies which is the same thing runs duplicates and is even better to maintain and manage because you have all your retentions over a single policy this way you can see if is a drive/stu problem or if is the vault.
hope this helps.
regards
07-22-2008 02:35 AM
@Ron Cohn:
thx for this description. But i did not set the fragment size till you say it to me. After i have set it. But with no cuccess!
And with standard configuration should your sample not to refer?
i didn't know this funkction till you say it to me. I should read some docu and test it before i can use it. And i should have any solution for yet. Thanks anyway.
07-22-2008 08:02 AM
07-23-2008 01:42 AM
Hi Ron Cohn
you've right. i have two duplicates (each for for one drive).
sorry for my english, when you dont understand what i mean.