backup to tape sequentially other than multiple tapes at the same time. - Veritas Net Backup

This is a discussion on backup to tape sequentially other than multiple tapes at the same time. - Veritas Net Backup ; Hi, I am using Netbackup 6.0MP3, I want each backup policy to use its own tapes, that means one tape is only used for one policy other than multiple policies. I setup media pool for each policy. But I also ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: backup to tape sequentially other than multiple tapes at the same time.

  1. backup to tape sequentially other than multiple tapes at the same time.


    Hi,
    I am using Netbackup 6.0MP3, I want each backup policy to use its own tapes,
    that means one tape is only used for one policy other than multiple policies.
    I setup media pool for each policy. But I also want the backup use the tape
    media one by one, that means, write the backup to another tape until the
    previous one is full. How to make this happen?
    If I setup the max concurrent write drive to 1, the tape writing become sequential,
    but It affect the performance? Is there any good solutions?

    Thanks,

    Jack


  2. Re: backup to tape sequentially other than multiple tapes at the same time.


    If you want performance, maybe you can set up a DSU and duplicate it to the
    tape pool.
    Set the DSU concurrent to more than 1. The duplication will go from local
    disk to tape so it's faster.

    "jack" wrote:
    >
    >Hi,
    >I am using Netbackup 6.0MP3, I want each backup policy to use its own tapes,
    >that means one tape is only used for one policy other than multiple policies.
    >I setup media pool for each policy. But I also want the backup use the tape
    >media one by one, that means, write the backup to another tape until the
    >previous one is full. How to make this happen?
    >If I setup the max concurrent write drive to 1, the tape writing become

    sequential,
    >but It affect the performance? Is there any good solutions?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >
    >Jack
    >



+ Reply to Thread