I would agree with the position that both products have a place. In a
small shop, Backupexec can work well, but we were having backups of our
larger data servers (150 to 200 gig) take up to 60 hours. Netbackup gets
it at least down to 24 for a full, on a slow server.
Our remote offices and local dmz, though, work fine with Backupexec. My
local sales rep tried to talk me into going with a remote office as a
media server connected to my local master, but the cost for this would
have been slightly more than BE, and with only a 64 K link between here
and some of our remote offices, there's no way I would try it.
Actually, the main problem we have with BE is getting the people in our
remote sites to change the tapes.
Bob Grabbe
Dominos Pizza LLC
734-930-3703
Fax 734-669-3703
grabbeb AT dominos DOT com
>>> "Labonte, L R (Leo), SOLIT" <llabonte AT att DOT com> 8/29/02 1:12:26 PM
>>>
Folks,
Believe me, I'm not trying to compare NetBackup and Backup Exec.
NetBackup is far more robust, at a premium price. We use both
products, and all I'm saying is Backup Exec has its nitch. So
I'm in favor of keeping both NetBackup and Backup Exec around.
If Backup Exec is phased out, then we can all look forward to
paying the higher prices, no matter what the application. Why
pay for a Mercedes, if a Nissan does the job. Also, we had an
incident where we sent a NetBackup Exchange tape to Microsoft,
and they were unable to read it to diagnose a problem. This
never got resolved and was eventually dropped. Not good!
Leo R. Labonte
AT&T
(732) 420-6080
llabonte AT att DOT com
-----Original Message-----
From: Quarantine [mailto:Quarantine AT GSCCCA DOT ORG]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 12:37 PM
To: Labonte, L R (Leo), SOLIT; Alvarez, Martin BGI SDC; Ballowe,
Charles; Jeffrey Dykzeul; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] BackupExec query
We back up about 500GB of databases and 3TB of data (mostly 50K
document
images) using a StorageTek library with 9840 drives. The main reasons
we
went with NetBackup were shared storage and SAN support. In our
environment, these are both vital for decent backups of approximately
50
million image files. My understanding is that neither of these
features
are
in Backup Exec, but I didn't compare the products since NBU was
purchased
before I came to this company.
Having used Backup Exec for several years before using NBU, I agree
that
it
has a better GUI. However, it can have a better GUI because it's a
much
more basic product. In addition, I can automate aspects of my
disaster
recovery with NetBackup since it has such a great command line
interface.
If you've only worked with Windows, this will take some getting used
to,
but
you'll find you can do a *lot* with it that you can't do with
GUI-driven
products.
NBU is *very* expensive compared to BE. I think it's the perfect
solution
for our environment and needs, and it was completely worth the
bucketfuls of
money that we poured into our disaster recovery architecture.
<completely personal opinion>
Whatever you do, don't pay for Veritas professional services to
install
NBU
if you end up buying it. We had such a terrible experience that we
received
a complete refund of the $17K installation charge, and I ended up
setting up
the entire environment myself.
</completely personal opinion>
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Labonte, L R (Leo), SOLIT [mailto:llabonte AT att DOT com]
Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 11:07 AM
To: Alvarez, Martin BGI SDC; Ballowe, Charles; Jeffrey Dykzeul;
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] BackupExec query
Backup Exec is compatible with the native Microsoft tape format,
while NetBackup uses tar. Believe Backup Exec is still cheaper.
We back up an enterprise of 50+ NT 4/Windows 2000 servers to a
STK library with 4 DLT tape drives. Local Microsoft administrators
prefer the Backup Exec GUI. I vote to continue with Backup Exec.
Leo R. Labonte
AT&T
(732) 420-6080
llabonte AT att DOT com
-----Original Message-----
From: Alvarez, Martin BGI SDC
[mailto:Martin.Alvarez AT barclaysglobal DOT com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 5:44 PM
To: 'Ballowe, Charles'; 'Jeffrey Dykzeul';
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] BackupExec query
My input is that BE is NOT an enterprise level product like NBU. It
is
meant for small workgroup type office settings that focus more on
workstations, e-mail and small MS data servers. I have heard that BE
does
backup the UNIX platform, but I have never heard anyone actually say
they
are doing it.
Our Windows server team also uses BE for all Exchange and most other
app
and
data servers, but this is exclusive to their environment and we would
not
even consider using them to back up our UNIX environment. The funny
thing
is that NBU 4.5 is so close to BE, and uses most of the same
technologies,
that I have been trying to convince them move to the one product.
However,
The cost argument (licensing, deployment etc..) always wins even
though
they
know it would be much easier to manage and use.
JMO
~Martin
Barclays Global Investors
-----Original Message-----
From: Ballowe, Charles [mailto:CBallowe AT usg DOT com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 8:50 AM
To: 'Jeffrey Dykzeul'; veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: RE: [Veritas-bu] BackupExec query
BackupExec is what the windows guys here use and have been using for
years. I believe we're transitioning to NBU for a new server
environment
that is being built. Our first use of NBU was for a Unix based Oracle
Applications setup.
>From what I can tell of BackupExec, it's more GUI driven, and has less
(read: no) power from the command line. Everything is handled from the
server - I don't think client directed restores are possible. It works
fine for them, but I'm not sure I'd want it in a large multi-platform
environment. (We do have a couple of directories on a Linux and a
Solaris
machine backed up by it, I have yet to see an attempted restore of
that
data though.)
-charlie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Dykzeul [mailto:Jeffrey_Dykzeul AT Raytheon DOT com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 12:43 PM
> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] BackupExec query
>
>
> Some of my Windows colleagues are testing BackupExec with various
tape
> drives and libraries to see if it meets their needs. Has
> anyone on this
> list performed a similar study and might be willing to share their
> findings? Anybody have any from-the-hip comments about using
> BackupExec?
>
>
> Jeff Dykzeul
> Raytheon
> El Segundo CA USA
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
