Video Screencast Help

Problem with barcode rules on 2012

Created: 14 Oct 2013 • Updated: 14 Oct 2013 | 4 comments
psh's picture
This issue has been solved. See solution.

Hi

I have a library with a mixture of LTO5 and LTO3 drives and would like to be able to use a mixture of tapes without them being loaded into incorrect slots. I've been following this article on setting up barcode rules: http://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/setting-barcode-rules-be-2012

Problem is it doesn't seem to work and I suspect the reason is that Backup Exec is stripping out the L5/L3 suffix. So for example, a tape I inserted has the label 004775L5 but shows in BE as just 004775. However, if I look on the web interface of the library itself, the L5 suffix is showing up.

Any ideas? Is this normal behaviour?

Paul

Operating Systems:

Comments 4 CommentsJump to latest comment

Colin Weaver's picture

I am not sure if this is your issue as your example code is not that long but we have seen a problem in the past where the webinterface of the library is showing the complete barcode, but because of a length setting somewhere in the library itself, what is actually being sent to Backup Exec is truncated. The solution to this problem was to consult the hardware vendor's information on how to make sure the barcode length is configured correctly

Yes we found it odd that the webinterface would display the full code even though the library was configured to only allow short codes too and in fact it took a while to troubleshoot because of this unexpected view.

 

The previous issue is documunted here

http://www.symantec.com/docs/TECH61914

SOLUTION
psh's picture

Thanks Colin! I changed the setting on the library to use extended barcode, rather than standard, and now the tapes are showing up with the L5 suffix.

One question though, am I going to have to recatalogue all the tapes that were previously written to without the suffix?

Colin Weaver's picture

Now that is an interesting question - in theory the GUID for the tape will be the same with just the label changing - so just an inventory might be enough. However I would test it. (Note: I don't think a scan will be enough as that only reads the barcode and not the GUID).

In the meantime I will try and find out the answer internally as it did not come up when the article I provided was written (even though it is a logical question to ask)

 

 

Colin Weaver's picture

My internal feedback indicates that it's likely you may have to do an inventory and a catalog to sort out the barcodes and allow the restores to be unaffected by the change in label.