We have a similar setup at our site, using 2 drives in an ATL P1000
directly connected to the NetApp 760, and a Sun box as the master server.
We have indexed backups, short incrementals (cummulative) and the
performance of our backups, two in parallel, is 19 and 23GB/hr for
each of the two volumes respectively. Also, the tape format is not
proprietary, in fact, we have taken the tapes and read them using
ufsrestore on a Sun system.
Chris
Pearson, Kim (STP) writes:
> We actually have 2 NAS 760 filers - 1 for the UNIX team, 1 for NT. The UNIX
> team backs up the NAS using NFS mounts over the network (NetBackup). That is
> not painful. We get nice, indexed backups, can slice them up according to
> NFS mounts, and get great performance - 20 GB/hour or 5-6 MB/second per
> drive. We are using Gb ethernet, so that's something to consider. We are
> able to split up the fulls, and do them throughout the month. This makes our
> backup windows acceptable, and restores much faster.
>
> The NT group's NAS has two DLT's directly attached, and uses NDMP/NetBackup
> to do the backups. Problems:
>
> 1) The RESTORES are horrendous - no indexes, so the entire backup is
> "scanned" for the requested files/directories.
> 2) Can't share the DLT's with non-NDMP boxes, so they sit idle a lot
> of the time.
> 3) Differential Incremental (daily) backups are HUGE - NDMP doesn't
> look at the Archive bit, but rather "last accessed time". We back up
> approximately 20% every night as a result. Should be closer to 1-2%.
> 4) Proprietary tape format - not "generic" like tar or NT tape
> format. Need NDMP to restore - not good for DRP.
> 5) Direct attached tapes do not keep up with our UNIX "networked"
> speeds! Explain that one! They get about 17 GB/hour vs. our 20+ GB/hour.
>
> So...that's why I hate NDMP, and in fact NAS. However, $ for $, NAS is hard
> to beat for file storage, which is why they are becoming so popular.
>
> Kim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sq01 AT yorku DOT ca [mailto:sq01 AT yorku DOT ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:50 AM
> To: Pearson, Kim (STP)
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Sharing library between NT and UNIX media
> servers
>
>
> Hi Kim,
>
> I'm curious as to why you're rejecting NDMP ? We'd originally gone the
> "backup via NFS route" and thought *that* was quite painful.
>
> ---
> On Jan 17, 9:10am, Pearson, Kim (STP) wrote:
> > Subject: [Veritas-bu] Sharing library between NT and UNIX media servers
> > Are there any issues we need to be aware of when sharing a Storage Tek
> 9740
> > with an NT media server?
> >
> > We are currently using a Sun E450 as the master/media server. We have a
> > Network Appliance attached to two of the DLT drives on the 9740, using
> NDMP
> > for backups (BIG MISTAKE!!!). We would like to move the NetApp backups to
> an
> > NT media server, and LOSE NDMP forever! The NT media server would then
> mount
> > NetApp shares over the network, and backup the NT media server drives as
> if
> > they are local drives. Of course, this means network traffic, but never
> mind
> > that. Anything is better than NDMP. Bottom line - we need to move the two
> > DLT drives off of the NAS, and put them on an NT device. Any control
> issues?
> > Sharing library problems? Other info - NBU 3.2, NT 4.0, Solaris 2.6...
> >
> > Any and all comments welcome and appreciated!!
> >
> > Kim
> > _______________________________________________
> > Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> > http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
> >-- End of excerpt from Pearson, Kim (STP)
>
>
>
> --
> /Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
|