Video Screencast Help

Why does BMR Utility collect all disks information?

Created: 07 Apr 2013 • Updated: 29 Apr 2013 | 3 comments
Caushiph Unvar's picture
0 Agree
0 Disagree
0 0 Votes
Login to vote

Hi, 

I have couple of comments regarding BMR options, 

1. The basic reason to have BMR is to protect OS , other file systems are taken care by other FS/DB/ Application backups then why do we need to have all disks information collection in BMR? Usually whenever we take BMR backups we are either very specific to OS partitions or use exclude_list to avoaid big chunk of ( mostly inconsistent e.g. database ) backup data as we all know that other policies will take care of other types of data. I do understand that BMR gives us option while restoration that we can only restore OS disks but still what is the purpose to collect irrelevent information? 

 

2. Due to above mention irrelevent data collection, there are alot of applied or hidden limitations we usually come across when having a setup of BMR. One example is of multipathing as mentioned in the technote  http://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH204180 . It becomes  most interesting when Symantec support says , "Symantec has not tested it yet so N/A"   isn't it funny to say this to customer.

However I do understand due to varied and unique configurations that are possible, combined with vendor specific / OS restrictions it would be one of the biggest challenege but still I would request Symantec to perform all types of tests possible, or openly say Not supported to avoid ambiguity.  Or may be if we change BMR data collection design to be specific to OS , that may give us a BIG help.

3. In addition to existing directives, there should be another directive specific to BMR , intelligent enough to understand related client OS Level file systems mount points  or partitions rather to use ALL_LOCAL_DISK which collects all disks information and then we have to use of exclude_list to avoid other data or specific mount points declaration in the policy. I think , we can put such intelligence in client software easily.

Regards

 

Comments 3 CommentsJump to latest comment

mandar_khanolkar's picture

Hi Caushiph,

I will try to answer your points.

1. I agree that mainly app data is protected using app agents based policies and recovered separately later once system is back using BMR recovery.

Though sometimes whole machine (especially disk configs, volumes, file systems) needs to be prepared from scratch, like, a. some app fs crashed, disk failed b. or for compliance testing whole m/c needs to be setup on test env  c. volume type, fs size etc needs to be manipulated. In such cases BMR helps by recovering whole box (in same or customized layout fashion) and not only just OS.

This requires BMR to know whole m/c config rather than only OS centric parameters. Also to capture whole m/c skeleton info, BMR does not consume much time.

2. I understand and know this particular case of mp setup. Ideally yes, all tests need to be verified before declaring qualification. As even you pointed out, server leverl DR verification matrix is too big and complex being heterogeneous HW and different combinations of setups involved; some particular test case might not be specifically qualified. Also this particular case which is technoted, NB_BMR did not hear such setup/requierment earlier where OS is configured over multi-path.

3. Yes, OS_DRIVES kind of directive for taking OS fs only backup would definitely helpful. There is already an usability enhancement recorded for this. I will follow-up on this.

Thanks.

Mandar

+1
Login to vote
Caushiph Unvar's picture

Hi Mandar,

Thanks for the reply.

Its been almost one year to this idea/concern post, and what we got from symantec is a new eeb only for linux  multipathing which is tested but still having some concerns over operational challenges. But at least a good sign about MP chapter in BMR.

However , do we have any update on point # 3 i.e. regarding OS level directive for BMR.

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

0
Login to vote
mandar_khanolkar's picture

Hi Caushiph,

Thanks for your feedback. Please let me know the operational concerns and any specific improvements you would like to see on the MP recovery support.

The OS_DRIVES directive support in backup selection list is yet to be enabled.

Thanks.

Mandar

0
Login to vote