After installing the updated version of SEPM 12.1.4x over the weekend our NetBackup backups behaved eratic on all Windows 2008 server clients.

After the update when the first backups kicked off it took extremely long to complete, affecting policies that needed to start after the initial policies, causing them to miss their time window and eventually causing a traffic jam if you could call it that.

We didn't upgrade the clients on the servers as the initial Release Notes stated that the clients doesn't need to be updated with the Manager, but I noticed with the SEPM update to 12.1.4x it created new packages for clients with the same version more or less - 12.1.4013.4013.

Our NetBackup enviroment consist of the physical tape library and Master server, two different nodes that both have Symantec client 12.1.1000.157 RU1 (same version as all other servers in our enviroment) installed. As per Symantec recommendations a list of NetBackup services were excluded from scanning, we also disabled the on both nodes to prevent any form of scanning (although the definitions update daily). This normally shows on the SEPM Home Page under Endpoint Protection > Disabled.

After the SEPM update on Saturday the two backup servers didn't show as Disabled (although on the servers itself it remained disabled) - since yesterday afternoon (Wednesday) it started showing on the Home Page again and yesterday evening all backups completed successful and in time.

So now we beg the question - did the fact that it didn't show on the Home Page mean there were some or other communication problem between Manager and clients? Because since the update untill yesterday morning when it started showing up on the homepage it received daily definitions and the policies all pulled through - so it's very difficult for us to figure out what happened between the update on saturday (1/3/2014) untill yesterday afternoon (5/3/2014).

Can anybody perhaps please shed some light on anything we can look at to try and determine what the problem was and how to prevent it from possibly happening again.

We did check the logs on all servers, including the SEPM server and backup servers and nothing! Our network utilization were stable over the last week, no high CPU or Memory usage across the board, so we're clueless to say the least.

Thank you.

...moved to the correct forum (it was posted in the BE forum!).

Thanks!

Technically it was a Backup problem. Probably doesn't matter, as it relates to NetBackup and Symantec Endpoint.

Tiaan - what Craig was saying is that he moved it from the Backup Exec forum to the NetBackup forum, since the backup product you are using is NetBackup, not Backup Exec.

If you feel that this is an Endpoint issue, you may also want to post in that forum:

Endpoint Protection (AntiVirus)

From NetBackup point of view, we are not SEPM or AV experts.
All we can tell you is what needs to be excluded on the AV side to ensure backups are not impacted.

General recommendations for virus scanner exclusions working with NetBackup

http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH152328

Apologies, didn't know it was BackupExec. 

I'm not sure exactly which product exactly is causing the issue, we would presume it's the AV since we had no issues since the new update. I'll move it to the AV forum thanks Marianne.

All the exclusions have been in place for some time now, so I'm guessing for some odd reason that since the update, the policies from the SEPM didn't apply (although it showed on the clients itself).

I just need someone to confirm this or provide an alternative cause as to what it could be so that we can provide a RCA to management for feedback.

Thanks

Out of curiosity, what SEP components do you have installed?

Is your problem similar to what's happening here:

https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/forums/entire-network-slows-after-upgrading-sepm-121-ru4a

Hi Brian, across all servers we still have 12.1.1000.157 RU1, except we installed the new version on about 5 servers to test, the 12.1.4013.4013 version which didn't seem to make a difference.

I have posted my issue on the forum link you provided thank you. Hopefully someone there can confirm my suspicions.