You cannot NDMP to DSUs.

-Jonathan 

-----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 Jim Hall
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:55 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup protecting 30TB - 60TB NetApp over
NDMP.

What if I NDMP to a DSU on a NetBackup Media server?
Is that still unavailable for synths?

With SnapMirror, I believe that requires us investing more money with
NetApp.

Thanks,

Jim

--- "Tharp, Trey" <Trey.Tharp AT allstate DOT com> wrote:

> Short answer = SnapMirror, then backup that mirror filer for 
> days/weeks if you need to. Once your initial mirror is done, it's only

> the block-level changes from that point. Also, if you are using NDMP 
> direct backups, where the filer has tape connectivity, then synthetic 
> backups are not available.
> 
> NDMP is a horrible protocol and once your filers start to grow to 
> these sizes and beyond backups become difficult at best.
> SnapMirror works
> great and once you get it to that cheaper-disk destination filer, you 
> can spin to tape.
> 
> -Trey
> 
> -----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 Jim Hall
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 8:38 AM
> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup protecting 30TB - 60TB NetApp over 
> NDMP.
> 
> I am a "newb" to the list. I have some experience with NetBackup 5.1 
> MP4.
> 
> Anyways, I have an interesting problem. I have a NetApp GX system that

> needs to be protected. It looks like the best method would be to 
> backup the unit using NDMP. The problem we are running into, 
> theoretically at this moment as we design the backup system, is the 
> limitation of the cluster interconnect and the ability to move up to 
> 30TB, and in time 60TB of data across a 2GB FC link to a tape storage 
> library. Doing the math, we would never be able to use the netapp for 
> what it was designed for as the cluster-interconnects would be 
> continuously saturated. The reason for this (and this is something I 
> inherited) is that even though there are 4 Heads, 1 Head is the owner 
> of a metadata volume that pretty much encompasses the entire unit, so 
> 75% of the data has to come across the cluster interconnect (this is 
> limited to 2Gb).
> 
> We could re-arch the FS to balance across all 4 Head nodes, but we 
> still have a 2Gb limitation per node as that is the fastest FC card 
> available for these guys.
> 
> My idea is to implement some kind of synthetic full strategy. That is,

> move as much data as possible for an initial full to tape (we have a 
> two week outage coming up in a couple months), then create a disk 
> stage where we can store incrementals. As long as the daily change 
> rate allows us to move the incrementals in say 8hrs or so (across Gbe 
> or FC), I think we would be fine. The question I have for everyone is,

> how long should I expect it to take for 4 LTO4 drives in combination 
> with incrementals on say a thumper, to generate a weekly full to tape 
> (lets be harsh and say we have a 10% change rate throughout the week).

> I want to start at 30TB today and scale to 60TB over the next 
> 18-24mos.
> 
> Anyone have similar experiences?
> 
> What I am looking at is possibly using a x4500 as a combined media 
> server and disk storage unit.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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