Video Screencast Help

Creating a Storage Unit using only 1 drive out of 2 configured to same host - is this possible?

Created: 15 Nov 2012 • Updated: 18 Feb 2013 | 6 comments
This issue has been solved. See solution.

Hi all - would appreciate some help on this topic. We are currenly moving from Alexandria Backup Software to Netbackup software and have 2 tape drives attached to the same host. We would like to create a seperate Storage Unit for each tape drive and also then a Storage Unit containing both tape drives.

We have been able to create the 2nd Storage Unit with both tape drives as it would appear that the wizard (and also the command line utility) seems to pick up all the same type tape drives attached to the host to create a Storage Unit.

We would like the option to be able to target backups (especially when testing tape drives) to a particular tape drive on occasions - which we can do with our present backup software.

I cannot seem to find anywhere having spent hours googling and looking through various pdf documents as to how this can be accomplished in Netbackup.

Please help if you can

Thanks in advance

Comments 6 CommentsJump to latest comment

Marianne's picture

Unless you manually configure the drives with different densities, it will not be possible to create a different STU for each drive.

Different drive densities will require media to be configured with different densities to match drive densities.

There is normally no need to have different STU's. NBU will load balance drive usage automatically. Maybe you can tell us why you need to have different STU's?

You can limit the amount of drives that each media server is allowed to use by reducing the Max Concurrent Drives in STU properties.

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

Nathan Kippen's picture

another option perhaps would to disable the drive you don't want to use (DOWN the drive in netbackup).  I have done this in the past if I want to use a particular drive -- I would make the others unavailable. 

Symantec Certified Specialist
Don't forget to vote or mark solution!

new_nb_user's picture

Hi Marianne & Nathan - Thanks for your quick responses on this question.  I was kinda thinking that it wasnt possible after not finding anything on the forums and google searches.

It would have been useful to be able to run test policies (especially when you have had tape drive problems)against an individual tape drive - without having to "down" the other tape drive to do so. 

It probably is not such a big deal while we only have 2 tape drives on that host - but when it expands in number it would have been useful to have created a test policy for each tape drive which we could use when we had tape drive issues. Also "downing" a number of drives to get to use the one you want may not be feasible if you have 5+ tape drives attached to your media server.

Does anyone know of an easy way of targeting a particular tape drive that is part of a Storage Unit ?

Andy Welburn's picture

Does anyone know of an easy way of targeting a particular tape drive that is part of a Storage Unit ?

I've only ever done it the way Nathan has suggested. As you say, once you get into the realms of *many* tape drives then this will become totally unfeasible.

Maybe worth putting forward an Idea whereby we *could* specify which drives go in which STU - they do already have drive numbers so could limit it that way maybe & by default STU config would choose any.

new_nb_user's picture

Thanks Andy.  Think I will take up your suggestion of putting an Idea forward - especially as you have provided the link for me.

Thanks all for responding. I can stop "googling" now.

Andy Welburn's picture

You'll *never* stop Googling!

As far as the link's concerned, that's just where they all are, but you can 'Create Content -> Idea' from anywhere from the drop-down on the 'top' bar.

Come back & let us know the link to the Idea & I'm sure we'll all vote for it - the more votes it gets it *may* get implemented.

As this is now effectively resolved (even though it isn't) could you mark Mariannes post as the solution (to essentially close the discussion)