Two servers sharing a two-drive library over a SAN, licenses required? 1

[fraxx]

I've setup a small SAN where I can share a tape library over Fibre Channel. Device-wise everything works ok. I've got a full server license for each of the two servers sharing the library, and I also got two SSO licenses. However, I didn't think I would be needing two Library Extension Option licenses, only one. My rationale for this was that there is only one physical library, and therefore I should be ok with only one Library Extension Option. When I installed Backup Exec I didn't enter any Library Extension Option license key in the second server install, but now I get a license warning on that server saying I only have licenses for one drive. One drive being included in the server license.

Can anyone confirm that I do indeed need a separate LEO license for each attached server in the SAN I want to run SAN backups on? If so, Backup Exec is going downhill fast in my recommendations on which backup software to get.
If I need a full server license, SSO license _and_ a LEO license for each server I'm probably better off with NetBackup, NetWorker or Data Protector.
/charles

 

[SQLBill]

If both servers can 'see' and access the tape library, yes you need two licenses. Regardless of how it's set up, it's still two servers accessing the library.

-SQLBill

 

[Scanner]

The LEO is a shared license that can be used on any server for which you have purchased an SSO license. Instead of leaving that option blank when you installed it, you could've used the same serial number as the other server's.

Simple enough to fix...just rerun setup and install the option

Have you looked at the white paper on the subject from V-tas? Here's the link, the licensure statements should be toward the end:

http://eval.veritas.com/mktginfo/products/White_Papers/Data_Protection/bews_91_san_sso_wp.pdf

Hope this helps.

Scanner

 

[fraxx]

Thanks Scanner, have a star! Chalk one for the lazy in me. I glanced at Veritas' site and saw this paper mentioned but didn't bother reading it, thinking it was another case of marketing drivel.


/charles