ADSM-L

Re: [ADSM-L] Backup up a NetApp Filer without using NDMP

2009-03-19 18:57:26
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Backup up a NetApp Filer without using NDMP
From: "Brian G. Kunst" <bkunst AT U.WASHINGTON DOT EDU>
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:57:05 -0700
Thanks for the help everyone.  NDMP looked unsupportable to us since it'd 
require putting the Filer on our SAN and we don't have a currently have system 
to charge for data sent across the SAN.  NDMP via the network looks like a 
workable option though.

Thanks again,

--
Brian Kunst
Storage Administrator
UW Technology Services


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of Wanda Prather
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 6:05 AM
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] Backup up a NetApp Filer without using NDMP
> 
> I have more customers that backup their filers by mounting the shares
> to a
> Windows box than I do using NDMP.
> 
> It's slower, but it gives you true incrementals and lets you specify
> retention using TSM's normal  mgmt classes, and it makes individual
> file
> restores easier.  You usually end up sending less data per day across
> your
> network, and you don't have to manage retention by keeping the NDMP
> full
> dumps around, so you usually have less of a storage problem on the TSM
> server end.
> 
> The big drawback is if you have a total filer disaster and you need to
> restore the whole thing, mass restores via the mounted shares is gonna
> be
> too slow.
> 
> A good compromise is an NDMP dump via TCP/IP every week or so with a
> short
> retention, plus incrementals via the regular client on a Windows box
> using
> normal/long retentions.  That way if you have a disaster you can put
> the
> NDMP dump back, then do a "restore if newer" to roll that image back up
> to
> date.  But you don't have to keep many NDMP dumps in your TSM storage
> pool.
> 
> W
> 
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Shawn Drew <
> shawn.drew AT americas.bnpparibas DOT com> wrote:
> 
> > Depending on your "Various Reasons" , you might still want to go with
> > NDMP.  If you don't want to use it because of a lack of SAN/Tape
> drives,
> > you can still backup over IP to the normal storage pool hierarchy.
> > In Chapter 7 of the Administrator's Guide, look at the section:
> > "Performing NDMP Filer to Tivoli Storage Manager Server Backups" for
> > details.
> >
> > Otherwise, the other option is to mount the file systems and back it
> up
> > with a normal B/A client.  (Preferably from the TSM Server itself)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Shawn
> > ________________________________________________
> > Shawn Drew
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Internet
> > bkunst AT U.WASHINGTON DOT EDU
> >
> > Sent by: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > 03/18/2009 05:28 PM
> > Please respond to
> > ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> >
> >
> > To
> > ADSM-L
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > [ADSM-L] Backup up a NetApp Filer without using NDMP
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > We have a customer with a NetApp Filer they want to back up to our
> TSM
> > system.  For various reasons, we can't support using NDMP in our
> > environment.  Does anyone out there currently do backups of a Filer
> > without using NDMP?  If so, what method did you employ?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > --
> > Brian Kunst
> > Storage Administrator
> > University of Washington - Technology Services
> >
> >
> > This message and any attachments (the "message") is intended solely
> for
> > the addressees and is confidential. If you receive this message in
> error,
> > please delete it and immediately notify the sender. Any use not in
> accord
> > with its purpose, any dissemination or disclosure, either whole or
> partial,
> > is prohibited except formal approval. The internet can not guarantee
> the
> > integrity of this message. BNP PARIBAS (and its subsidiaries) shall
> (will)
> > not therefore be liable for the message if modified. Please note that
> > certain
> > functions and services for BNP Paribas may be performed by BNP
> Paribas RCC,
> > Inc.
> >

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>