Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

netbackup 7.5.0.6 bpimmedia question

Posted by Anonymous 
netbackup 7.5.0.6 bpimmedia question
July 24, 2013 08:28PM
i've upgraded 1 of my environments to 7.5.0.6, and noticed that the db/images/<client>/<epoch_dir>/<policy>_<epoch>_<backup-type> files are no longer there. the .f files are there, and now a .lck file is there, but not the backup image header file for me to grab backup data out of. so i'm trying to get fragment information using the bpimmedia command, which runs much faster as all of the data is in 1 central location, but it doesn't return everything. not getting all the data back faster doesn't cut it. i think since netbackup 3.4 the bpimmedia command has returned all fragments in a backup set when any of the media is given for the mediaid option. here's an example of a backup that went to 5 tapes in netbackup 7.1.0.4, it is an ndmp backup, so some catalog data gets written at the end to FRAG -1.
# bpimmedia -mediaid L46555
IMAGE ushoufas6070a 8 ushoufas6070a_1374656402 netapp-6070a-sqlbakrepl6 19 full 0 3 29098 1377334802 0 0
FRAG 1 -1 4556 0 3 6 2 L46555 houlebspd1 65536 11474540 1374656402 9 64 *NULL* 0 0 3 1
FRAG 1 1 49437184 0 3 6 3 L45086 houlebspd1 65536 13170345 1374581017 9 64 *NULL* 1377334802 0 3 1
FRAG 1 2 839758208 0 3 6 1 L45352 houlebspd1 65536 2 1374656402 9 64 *NULL* 0 0 3 1
FRAG 1 3 837484032 0 3 6 1 L45585 houlebspd1 65536 2 1374656402 9 64 *NULL* 0 0 3 1
FRAG 1 4 832688640 0 3 6 1 L46840 houlebspd1 65536 2 1374656402 9 64 *NULL* 0 0 3 1
FRAG 1 5 734370304 0 3 6 1 L46555 houlebspd1 65536 2 1374656402 9 64 *NULL* 0 0 3 1

in my 7.5.0.6 environment, i have a backup that went to 6 tapes. running the bpimmedia command on 1 tape returns just that fragment:
# bpimmedia -mediaid 000189
IMAGE usbcpfas3050 8 usbcpfas3050_1329405567 netapp-fas3050-special-req-snap 19 full 0 9 3515573 2147483647 0 0 0 0
FRAG 1 6 513484544 0 3 20 1 000189 auslebsms1 65536 2 1329405567 14 0 *NULL* 2147483647 0 9 1 *NULL* 0

running it on another tape returned that tape which was used at the end of another backup, and the first fragment of this backup:
# bpimmedia -mediaid 000195
IMAGE usbcpfas3050 8 usbcpfas3050_1329405567 netapp-fas3050-special-req-snap 19 full 0 9 3515573 2147483647 0 0 0 0
FRAG 1 1 139074176 0 3 20 3 000195 auslebsms1 65536 7657992 1329252218 14 0 *NULL* 2147483647 0 9 1 *NULL* 0
IMAGE usbcpfas3050 8 usbcpfas3050_1329252218 netapp-fas3050-special-req-snap 19 full 0 9 3515666 2147483647 0 0 0 0
FRAG 1 6 489615360 0 3 20 1 000195 auslebsms1 65536 2 1329252218 14 0 *NULL* 2147483647 0 9 1 *NULL* 0

another tape in the set:
# bpimmedia -mediaid 000134
IMAGE usbcpfas3050 8 usbcpfas3050_1329405567 netapp-fas3050-special-req-snap 19 full 0 9 3515573 2147483647 0 0 0 0
FRAG 1 3 623871552 0 3 20 1 000134 auslebsms1 65536 2 1329405567 14 0 *NULL* 2147483647 0 9 1 *NULL* 0

for the fun of it, i tried the nospan option, and it did list all 6 media used, plus another 12(?):
# bpimmedia -spanpools -mediaid 000134
SERVER auslebsms1
DISK POOL 000189 000195 000129 000134 000135 000138 000119 000182 000184 000185 000186 L41759 000102 000104 000153 000151 L41722 L41743

so i dumped the netbackup database, and looked into the *.dat files, and they look correct (dbm_image and dbm_imagefragment):
845.dat: '4930','1000002',,,,,,'usbcpfas3050','42','netapp-fas3050-special-req-snap','1329405567','0','0','19','9','0','0','0','3123802962','7','1','0','8','9','1','0','54640','2147483647','3515573','119330','32','root','full','','','netapp-fas3050-special-req-snap_1329405567_FULL.f','507617313','','','3748583707','0','0','1329405567','1329405567','0','1','','2013-07-16 17:29:10.666694','2013-07-16 17:29:10.666698'

849.dat:'29999','4930','5032','1','-1','0','000189','1000002','3','1','1','507660288','000189','20','2','65536','8023200','1329405567','14','0','*NULL*','0','0','','','2013-07-16 17:29:10.669941','2013-07-16 17:29:10.669945'
849.dat:'30000','4930','5032','1','1','0','000195','1000002','3','1','1','142411956224','000195','20','3','65536','7657992','1329252218','14','0','*NULL*','0','0','','','2013-07-16 17:29:10.670277','2013-07-16 17:29:10.670280'
849.dat:'30001','4930','5032','1','2','0','000129','1000002','3','1','1','638745640960','000129','20','1','65536','2','1329405567','14','0','*NULL*','0','0','','','2013-07-16 17:29:10.670566','2013-07-16 17:29:10.670570'
849.dat:'30002','4930','5032','1','3','0','000134','1000002','3','1','1','638844469248','000134','20','1','65536','2','1329405567','14','0','*NULL*','0','0','','','2013-07-16 17:29:10.670885','2013-07-16 17:29:10.670889'
849.dat:'30003','4930','5032','1','4','0','000135','1000002','3','1','1','609969635328','000135','20','1','65536','2','1329405567','14','0','*NULL*','0','0','','','2013-07-16 17:29:10.671208','2013-07-16 17:29:10.671212'
849.dat:'30004','4930','5032','1','5','0','000138','1000002','3','1','1','642486697984','000138','20','1','65536','2','1329405567','14','0','*NULL*','0','0','','','2013-07-16 17:29:10.671486','2013-07-16 17:29:10.671490'
849.dat:'30005','4930','5032','1','6','0','000189','1000002','3','1','1','525808173056','000189','20','1','65536','2','1329405567','14','0','*NULL*','0','0','','','2013-07-16 17:29:10.671771','2013-07-16 17:29:10.671774'

can anyone else verify this or do i need to open a support ticket? i thought by patch 7.5.0.6 things would be working...

thanks,
jerald

****************************************************************
Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this
message, and any attachments, may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. It is intended solely for the
person(s) or entity to which it is addressed. Any review,
retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in
reliance upon this information by persons or entities other
than the intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material from any computer.
****************************************************************
Jerald, you bring up a valid point. 2 of them, actually.
In 7.5, the image header is no longer a standalone file, it resides in the EMM database.

As to bpimmedia, this was discovered earlier on in 7.5 so it is a known issue. However, it has not come up in an actual Support case.
There is a bug report but it in order to get some faster action on it, I recommend opening a case with NetBackup support.
When your technician is assigned, refer them to ET3269039.
Hope this helps.

Steve Murphy
NetBackup Support
Symantec Corp.
go.symantec.com/nbu
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.