Backup Central

I have a question. I maintain a Windows XP VM to use as an NMC client. I
do regularly backup the NMC database (i.e., savepsm on a client definition
of "NMCASA:/gst_on_<client>/gto_gst".

I've seen passing references on this list that the NMC console machine
does not have to be a client. How can that be - doesn't creating a client
instance to backup the NMC db (as shown above) indicate that a NW license
is in use?

How can you properly backup the NMC and yet not consume a license? I am
confused (nothing new there), In my case, the Windows XP is defined in the
NW client list with the definition above, and also in my "bootstrap" group
(i.e., "savegrp -O"). Should it not be in the "savegrp -O"?

Can someone shed some light on my mis-understanding?

--
Michael Leone
Network Administrator, ISM
Philadelphia Housing Authority
2500 Jackson St
Philadelphia, PA 19145
Tel: 215-684-4180
Cell: 215-252-0143
<mailto:michael.leone < at > pha.phila.gov>


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

Of course a machine must have the NW client software installed to be able to be backed up by NW.

So could it just be that you are trapped by standard NW licensing? - If you run NMC on the NW server, then no additional client license would be necessary.

On 14/11/11 14:39, Michael Leone wrote:
I have a question. I maintain a Windows XP VM to use as an NMC client. I
do regularly backup the NMC database (i.e., savepsm on a client definition
of "NMCASA:/gst_on_<client>/gto_gst".

I've seen passing references on this list that the NMC console machine
does not have to be a client. How can that be - doesn't creating a client
instance to backup the NMC db (as shown above) indicate that a NW license
is in use?

How can you properly backup the NMC and yet not consume a license? I am
confused (nothing new there), In my case, the Windows XP is defined in the
NW client list with the definition above, and also in my "bootstrap" group
(i.e., "savegrp -O"). Should it not be in the "savegrp -O"?

Can someone shed some light on my mis-understanding?



NMC client or NMC server? If it is just a client then there is nothing
to be backed up. If it is your NMC server then you will probably want to
backup the NMC database - so yes it will need a NetWorker client licence.


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

I've seen passing references on this list that the NMC console machine
does not have to be a client. How can that be - doesn't creating a
client
instance to backup the NMC db (as shown above) indicate that a NW
license
is in use?

How can you properly backup the NMC and yet not consume a license? I
am
confused (nothing new there), In my case, the Windows XP is defined in
the
NW client list with the definition above, and also in my "bootstrap"
group
(i.e., "savegrp -O"). Should it not be in the "savegrp -O"?

Can someone shed some light on my mis-understanding?



NMC client or NMC server? If it is just a client then there is nothing
to be backed up. If it is your NMC server then you will probably want to

backup the NMC database - so yes it will need a NetWorker client
licence.

NMC server. I run NMC on this box, so that makes it server. Guess that
answers that, then. Never occurred to me to try and install NMC client
software anywhere else. Isn't NMC client pretty much just a web app?
(well, java web app)


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

Of course a machine must have the NW client software installed to be
able to be backed up by NW.

So could it just be that you are trapped by standard NW licensing? -
If you run NMC on the NW server, then no additional client license
would be necessary.

(BTW - it would *really* be helpful is you would quote back what you are
replying to, thanks)

I have 140 clients; no way can I run NMC on my server.

So I still don't understand where these references to the NMC machine not
needing a client license are coming from. And yes, I could use more
licenses (not an unusual or unknown occurrence). So I'm looking for
clients I can delete (after saving their client IDs, of course, in case I
need to re-create the client later, for unexpected restores).


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

@Michael

probably a bad habit but without a different style, color or other indication i am just always confused by these permanent repetitions. It is hard to actually find the response. So i usually avoid repetitions as INMO i do not see any benefit in repeating the same text over and over again.

------------------

ML: So I still don't understand where these references to the NMC machine not needing a client license are coming from.


I think the explanation is straight - the data must be belong to a NW client and if it is not the NW server then it needs a license. Most likely the reason why by default NMC will install on the NW server.

BTW - you could also upgrade the NW server machine itself.
We have about 500 clients and run NMC on the NW server just fine.

On 14/11/11 21:50, bingo wrote:
< at > Michael

probably a bad habit but without a different style, color or other indication i am just always confused by these permanent repetitions. It is hard to actually find the response. So i usually avoid repetitions as INMO i do not see any benefit in repeating the same text over and over again.

There is very much point Carsten. These messages are not just on the
Backup Central forum, but also shared with the Temple Uni mailing list.
They look very different in the two formats, and an email out of context
makes very little sense without the message they refer to.


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

On 15/11/2011, at 9:31 AM, Davina Treiber wrote:

On 14/11/11 21:50, bingo wrote:
< at > Michael

probably a bad habit but without a different style, color or other indication i am just always confused by these permanent repetitions. It is hard to actually find the response. So i usually avoid repetitions as INMO i do not see any benefit in repeating the same text over and over again.

There is very much point Carsten. These messages are not just on the Backup Central forum, but also shared with the Temple Uni mailing list. They look very different in the two formats, and an email out of context makes very little sense without the message they refer to.

I have to agree. I see the effectiveness of the list greatly diminished by the mirroring with the BC forum. Neither style is incorrect. In a forum scenario, repeating the message is silly. In a mailing list, not repeating the list is equally silly.

As a result, I only check on the list once every week or so at most.

Cheers,
Preston.


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

In regard to: [Networker] NMC backup and licensing question, bingo said (at...:

probably a bad habit but without a different style, color or other
indication i am just always confused by these permanent repetitions. It
is hard to actually find the response. So i usually avoid repetitions as
INMO i do not see any benefit in repeating the same text over and over
again.

That's probably because you're reading this via the forum gateway, so the
context is available.

Remember that many of us read this via the mailing list, so the context
is lost if you don't include it in a (forum) reply.

Tim
--
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney < at > ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Preston de Guise
<enterprise.backup < at > gmail.com> wrote:
I have to agree. I see the effectiveness of the list greatly diminished by the mirroring with the BC forum. Neither style is incorrect. In a forum scenario, repeating the message is silly. In a mailing list, not repeating the list is equally silly.

As a result, I only check on the list once every week or so at most.


Is this a democracy? I know how I'd vote. If the forum gateway is
making the list harder to use as a list, and actively keeping experts
from contributing, in exchange for being friendlier for new users,
sacrificing the latter would be a small price to pay.

IMHO, of course.


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

In regard to: Re: [Networker] NMC backup and licensing question, Preston de...:

On 15/11/2011, at 9:31 AM, Davina Treiber wrote:

On 14/11/11 21:50, bingo wrote:
< at > Michael

probably a bad habit but without a different style, color or other
indication i am just always confused by these permanent repetitions.
It is hard to actually find the response. So i usually avoid
repetitions as INMO i do not see any benefit in repeating the same
text over and over again.

There is very much point Carsten. These messages are not just on the
Backup Central forum, but also shared with the Temple Uni mailing list.
They look very different in the two formats, and an email out of
context makes very little sense without the message they refer to.

I have to agree. I see the effectiveness of the list greatly diminished
by the mirroring with the BC forum.

I totally agree.

Neither style is incorrect. In a
forum scenario, repeating the message is silly. In a mailing list, not
repeating the list is equally silly.

As a result, I only check on the list once every week or so at most.

Instead of that, I've found myself "discriminating against" forum posts
and forum users. If a forum post includes enough information and I
believe I know the answer or can make some suggestions for something to
try, then I'll reply.

Most of the posts (and threads) that originate on the forum don't keep
enough of the context for me to be able to know what has already been
suggested or tried, though, so most times I won't respond to a thread
that has seen a number of forum posts on it, even when I think I might
know the answer.

I like that the forum has brought some knowledgeable and helpful new
people (like Carsten!) to the community. I just find that the forum has
lowered my ability to participate and be helpful.

Tim
--
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney < at > ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

On 14/11/11 22:48, Eugene Vilensky wrote:
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Preston de Guise
<enterprise.backup < at > gmail.com> wrote:
I have to agree. I see the effectiveness of the list greatly diminished by the mirroring with the BC forum. Neither style is incorrect. In a forum scenario, repeating the message is silly. In a mailing list, not repeating the list is equally silly.

As a result, I only check on the list once every week or so at most.


Is this a democracy? I know how I'd vote. If the forum gateway is
making the list harder to use as a list, and actively keeping experts
from contributing, in exchange for being friendlier for new users,
sacrificing the latter would be a small price to pay.


I don't particularly like effects of the forum mirroring, but there is
more to it than that. AFAIK there are about 5 places on the web where
you can be involved in NetWorker discussions. There is the
Temple/meitca/iphase list, the Backup Central forum, TekTips, some
discussions on Linkedin, and EMC's own forum. Now as NetWorker is a
fairly niche subject, I think any dilution of the available expertise is
a bad thing, so conversely, the more that these resources can come
together the better. The mailing list is the only one where I get
involved so I am missing out on the others (due to time constraints),
apart from Backup Central which I share by default.

The question of format is a matter of preference. I do like fora, but I
also like an old-fashioned mailing list. If this was a democracy (which
I think it's not) I would err on the side of keeping the forum mirroring.


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

On 14/11/11 22:50, Tim Mooney wrote:

I like that the forum has brought some knowledgeable and helpful new
people (like Carsten!) to the community.

Haha - I know Carsten and I can promise you that he is not "new", At
least not new to NetWorker. He has been doing NetWorker for about as
long as I have. That's why he can make such valuable contributions. I'm
glad he's joined the forum.


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

In regard to: Re: [Networker] NMC backup and licensing question, Davina...:

On 14/11/11 22:50, Tim Mooney wrote:

I like that the forum has brought some knowledgeable and helpful new
people (like Carsten!) to the community.

Haha - I know Carsten and I can promise you that he is not "new", At
least not new to NetWorker. He has been doing NetWorker for about as
long as I have. That's why he can make such valuable contributions. I'm
glad he's joined the forum.

Sorry; I meant new(ish) to this community. I very definitely guessed that
Carsten is not new to NetWorker.

Tim
--
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney < at > ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

In regard to: Re: [Networker] NMC backup and licensing question, Davina...:

I don't particularly like effects of the forum mirroring, but there is
more to it than that. AFAIK there are about 5 places on the web where
you can be involved in NetWorker discussions. There is the
Temple/meitca/iphase list, the Backup Central forum, TekTips, some
discussions on Linkedin, and EMC's own forum. Now as NetWorker is a
fairly niche subject, I think any dilution of the available expertise is
a bad thing, so conversely, the more that these resources can come
together the better. The mailing list is the only one where I get
involved so I am missing out on the others (due to time constraints),
apart from Backup Central which I share by default.

What you said mirrors exactly my feelings. Even more than the forum
mirroring, I'm especially peeved at EMC for splintering the community by
hosting separate forums. I understand all of the "business reasons" that
would prompt EMC to want to have something in house that they "control".
That doesn't mean it's good for the customer, though.

I do like that EMC employees follow and post on this list, both in an
official capacity and occasionally under the radar.

I don't participate in any of the other areas either, for much the same
reason. The one and only time that's ever made me feel left out is the
recent discussion on the NetWorker roadmap and wishlist for new versions.

Tim
--
Tim Mooney Tim.Mooney < at > ndsu.edu
Enterprise Computing & Infrastructure 701-231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building 701-231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164


via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER