Veritas-bu

Re: [Veritas-bu] VTL & NetBackup Best Practice

2008-03-05 15:27:33
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] VTL & NetBackup Best Practice
From: "Paul Keating" <pkeating AT bank-banque-canada DOT ca>
To: "Mike Ferlote" <merked AT rogers DOT com>, <veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:49:36 -0500
No question.
eliminate multiplexing with VTL.
just create the drives you need. Don't MPX and don't SSO.
 
if you create too many drives and run too many streams, it will slow down your "per stream" throughput.
 
same as with tapes, however....if you have 10 streams per drive to 4 drives, there's no reason to expect your per stream throughput to be any less when backing up 1 stream to 40 drives.
 
Paul
 
 
--
-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Mike Ferlote
Sent: March 05, 2008 6:25 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] VTL & NetBackup Best Practice

Hi,
I am currently testing my NetBackup environment to backup to VTL. We are seeing great backup performance but it seems like it requires a slight re-architecture to the current environment. I am being told to eliminate multiplexing... You can multiplex to a virtual drive but when it comes time to restore and to duplicate off to physical tape from a virtual cartridge that was multiplexed the performance is not very good. The Vendor said that multiplexing should be eliminated and instead of increasing multiplexing you can simply create additional virtual drives when needed. Since adding virtual tape drives in theory has no cost associated with it why not do this and eliminate multiplexing and SSO all together (that is the approach/mentality).

So my question to the forum is have others deployed VTLs in a similar fashion (i.e. MPX = 0) and how have things scaled and is there any associated management headaches? The couple con's of the above approach in my mind would be:
* Slower responding NBU GUI because there will be so many devices it will have to manage/query
* More BPTM processes since each tape drive in use requires one an additional BPTM process
* Slower backups on a per stream basis (which is OK because you have many drives I guess)

Can anyone comment if they foresee other drawbacks to this approach or have best practice recommendations?

Thank in advance for any feedback...
-Bill
====================================================================================

La version française suit le texte anglais.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of
Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this
email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from
your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle.
La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion,
utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une
personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite. Si vous recevez
ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à
l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre
ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu