Video Screencast Help
Symantec to Separate Into Two Focused, Industry-Leading Technology Companies. Learn more.

CLIENT SORTED IN POLICY

Created: 28 Oct 2013 • Updated: 29 Oct 2013 | 14 comments
This issue has been solved. See solution.

https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/idea/ability-prioritise-clients-within-policy

Many, many months ago (probably NB4.5, maybe even NB5.1?), the sequence in which clients were 'input' in the Policy determined the order in which the jobs ran i.e. the client at the top of the list ran first, followed by the second and so on.

Now, the list of clients gets sorted alphabetically & (I believe) the sequence is determined by the success of the previous 'run' i.e. if a client failed in the previous run for whatever reason then that client runs first next time out in order to allow for a successful backup (or something along those lines!) which in itself is no bad thing.

We have a Policy (well many really!) with a number of clients, say 8, & a max jobs per policy set to, say, 4. One of these clients takes most of the working day to backup - even if it starts first all the others will finish before it does. In NB6.5.4 (& maybe before?) you can change the priority of the jobs once they are queued or running, so I try & catch this particular client (which is invariably queued) & change its priority so it starts as soon as possible.

I think it would be a good idea to allow for this type of prioritisation actually within the Policy itself (maybe even to backup selection level?) to allow admins to more finely tune their backup environment.

=================================================

http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH35886

===================

Hi GUys,

Just a small query..

Which one is valid in NBU 7,.1 OUT OF THE 2 LINKS?

https://www-secure.symantec.com/connect/idea/ability-prioritise-clients-within-policy

www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=conte...

Operating Systems:

Comments 14 CommentsJump to latest comment

Stumpr2's picture

Why not simply put the client in a policy by itself and tune the policy for best throughput? It can then be broken up into multistreams, one stream for each drive, and run simultaneously. You should be able to get the overall backups done much faster.

VERITAS ain't it the truth?

Stumpr2's picture

This is still the correct solution for a client that runs the length of a backup window.

VERITAS ain't it the truth?

Arun K's picture

Hi All,

I cant test.It is a running env.Please anybody help me with this.

Urgent !!!!

Stumpr2's picture

start a new thread since this one is already marked as solved

VERITAS ain't it the truth?

Marianne's picture

What can be so urgent about a theoretical question?

When you are ready to find the answer, check one of your own policies that contains multiple clients.

Supporting Storage Foundation and VCS on Unix and Windows as well as NetBackup on Unix and Windows
Handy NBU Links

Arun K's picture

in policy under clients tab order is different .And when I run the manul backup of this policy ,when the client list come,that order is also different.

Arun K's picture

Anyone having the same issues as og mine?

in policy under clients tab order is different .And when I run the manul backup of this policy ,when the client list come,that order is also different.

mph999's picture

So the order of the clients in the policy is different than the order of the clients you see when you run a manual backup.
Well, if that's what you see, that is how it is - and the same for everyone else who uses the version of NBU you are on.
(I've never noticed, and I'm struggling to see how this is an issue ...)

So anyway that's that question answered.

How to prioritise a client - put it in it's own policy as suggested above.

Regards,  Martin
 
Setting Logs in NetBackup:
http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH75805
 
CRZ's picture

Anyone having the same issues as og mine?

I don't believe anyone ever has the same issues as you, with the possible exception of some of your other accounts.

(Although....often times, I'm not entirely certain even YOU'RE experiencing the issues you're writing about)


bit.ly/76LBN | APPLBN | 75LBN

Andy Welburn's picture

If i have to follow,which one to follow in  NBU 7.5.

What?

The first is an idea for something that didn't work in 6.x but did in 4.x or 5.x

The second is for something that worked for 5.x

You say in 7.5 the client ordering does not work ...... so my guess is neither

SOLUTION
Marianne's picture

WHY on EARTH would NBU 4.5 or 5.1 feature/method that got changed it subsequent versions be valid today in 7.x?

What does your logic and experience tell you?

The behaviour will go back to pre-NBU 6.x once Andy's IDEA got implemented. The idea will marked as such. At this point in time, the Idea is no even 'In Review'.

Supporting Storage Foundation and VCS on Unix and Windows as well as NetBackup on Unix and Windows
Handy NBU Links

Arun K's picture

Thanks Marianne.

I  am wondering  there might be some logic which NBU must be using so to which client backup to run out of 10 clients in a single  policy.Alphabetical or less successfull clients backup.

Andy Welburn's picture

There was never any logic as far as I could ascertain when I last looked into it  - just look at the comments I posted additionally to the idea - altho' there *could* be some underlying reasoning as you've suggested.