> From: <Fazil.Saiyed AT anixter DOT com>
> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:47:28 -0600
> To: Stan Horwitz <stan AT temple DOT edu>
> Cc: EMC NetWorker discussion <NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU>
> Subject: Re: [Networker] v7.4.2 to v7.4.4
> 
> I agree that NMC is better off on servers other then master server,
> however, there may be many companies that only has one master server, last
> time i tried migrating to NMC to SN i ran into issues, i will have to take
> up that project again.

That's the nice thing about the NMC. You don't need anywhere near as much
processing power for a separate NMC as you do for a NetWorker server. With
PCs and VMs being so readily available, the NMC can be set up on an
inexpensive physical or virtualized computer. The major consideration for
the NMC server is how much disk space to give it, which depends on how much
data you want to retain. You can even run a later version of the NMC on a
separate machine then the versions of your NetWorker servers and storage
nodes.

I run two NetWorker servers. One is Linux and it runs NSR 7.4.2 and the
other is Solaris 10 and it runs NSR 7.4.1. We run the version of NMC that
came with NSR 7.4.3 and in a few days, I plan to update it to 7.4.4.

Also, if you have multiple NetWorker servers and one of them hosts your
console manager, you lose access to both servers when the one that hosts the
NMC is rebooted. By keeping NMC on a totally separate box, you can reboot
your NetWorker servers without losing NMC access to the servers that are not
being rebooted.

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER