NetBackup Business Server v3.4 and LTO tape drive question - Veritas Net Backup

This is a discussion on NetBackup Business Server v3.4 and LTO tape drive question - Veritas Net Backup ; Hi all, I have an E3500 running Solaris 8, NetBackup Business Server v3.4 and an Exabyte 110L tape library with an IBM Ultrium LTO tape drive and 10 slots. Our RAID array has passed 200GIG capacity, so our stand alone ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: NetBackup Business Server v3.4 and LTO tape drive question

  1. NetBackup Business Server v3.4 and LTO tape drive question

    Hi all, I have an E3500 running Solaris 8, NetBackup Business Server v3.4
    and an Exabyte 110L tape library with an IBM Ultrium LTO tape drive and 10
    slots.
    Our RAID array has passed 200GIG capacity, so our stand alone DLT's don't
    cut it anymore. We bought the Exabyte 110L for it's high capacity, and
    speed.
    Veritas currently says they do NOT support this type of tape drive. :-(
    Does anyone know if and when they will?
    Or does anyone have an LTO tape drive working with BusinessServer? If so,
    how did you configure it.
    I have the Exabyte working with BusinessServer, but it thinks it's a DLT
    tape drive and library.

    Any suggestions/ideas would be greatly appreciated.
    Thanks very much
    Don






  2. Re: NetBackup Business Server v3.4 and LTO tape drive question



    > I have the Exabyte working with BusinessServer, but it thinks it's a DLT
    > tape drive and library.


    yes it is the way netbackup should recognize your lto drive (configured as a
    dlt drive )
    ,you entire configuration principally rely on /kernel/drv/st.conf I would
    suggest to contact your hardware manufacturer to get the correct entries and
    version of the file.When you have sorted out this part do straight away a
    test using tar (to backup and restore ) to find out the output then
    .....configure your sgdriver and netbackup ...

    El Zorro

    p.s. most of the issue posted in this newsgroup are performance related not
    configuration ...



+ Reply to Thread