We have had a chance to side-by-side a
5220 with a DD860 for the past couple of years and each has its high and
low points.
Most of that time we didn't have a backup
replication solution in place and depended on duplicating back to tape
off of each device for offsite storage. The Data Domain is hands
down much better at reconstructing its data for this purpose. I do
understand this isn't normally an intended operation, but pulling even
less than 10 images off of the 5220 at one time was work that produced
significant load on it as to impede its normal operation.
The hardware reliability of our 5220
atrocious. I can't tell you how many raid cards have been switched
out of this thing. If we have had a couple of disk failures on the
DD860 the past couple of years, but I always find out about those after
the fact. My datacenter people tell me that EMC was here to switch
it out and that is that.
We did place another 5220 at our DR
site with a DD4200 and implemented AIR. This is the by far the best
thing we ever did for our backup environment. The remote 5220 does
well as a remote master server handling the OST device and keeping track
of images coming in. Alleviating the need to send offsite tapes was
a boon to the process overall. We had a DR exercise last week and
having everything there already without the need of propping up a tape
library and a server to manage it was well worth the overall effort.
The 5220 performs well as a tape media
server, again another function that it more than likely isn't intended
to be used for. Performing as a media server for the Data Domain
does well also.
We depend on the local 5220 to handle
the VMware backups over SAN and it doesn't keep up with what we need. It
is just not built to handle the load.
Right now, I am in the market for another
device, and I am going to probably lean toward the Data Domain with another
media server that uses 10gb interfaces. We have really had to limit
what we send to the 5220, and we are realizing that we may even have to
pare that back. We really liked it for the VMware capabilities, but
performance is an issue and we may be finding ourselves using the Data
Domain for some of that load as well.
If you have a large VMware install base,
you will be well served to perform some load testing with proof of concept
devices. We were burnt by not doing enough of that ahead of time.
In this space, performance and functionality go hand-in-hand at times.
From:
"Scott Jacobson"
<SJACOBSO AT novell DOT com>
To:
"Mikhail Nikitin"
<mikhail.nikitin AT gmail DOT com>, <VERITAS-BU AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
Date:
11/16/2014 01:48 PM
Subject:
Re: [Veritas-bu]
Netbackup Appliance Vs Data Domain
Sent by:
veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
You'll likely receive many responses to your inquire so
I add mine as well. In my research with DD and Quantum is that they were
all compatible pieces to create the solution your seeking, however, there
are many moving parts in getting them to work and some features are missing
(as mentioned, ie. OST) compared to the Symantec Appliances. The
Symantec Appliances have many of the best of bread software products built
in i.e. Storage Foundation/High Availability etc.
Your environment sounds like an exact copy of ours. I
currently have three 5230's deployed globally for the primary purpose of
A.I.R., but also have one of them at our primary Data Center location whose
additional function was to reduce backup windows and deduplicate data -
all is working as promoted and designed. I've about a 72% deduplication
rate with structured and unstructured data. Accelerator based backups
are crazy fast after the first initial Full backup - two examples:
1. A 21 hour Full back up to LTO IV tape (dedicated backup
network infrastructure) now takes only 50 minutes to the 5230 deduplication
pool.
2. At an East Coast office a local backup of a 375 Gb Windows server with
1.8 million files would take around 9 to 10 hours. Again, with Accelerator
enabled and the backup occurring over the WAN to our 5230 Appliance deduplication
pool 2000 miles away, the backup only takes 1 hour 10 minutes. The rate
from the NBU Console reports 89121 KB Per Second. (this may sound misleading,
but you have to get your head around what the Accelerate and its Track
Journal is doing which is comparing (no tree walk) de-duped block changes
and sending only new blocks that don't reside on the target Appliance)
Symantec just announced the 5330 which is of course faster
than the 5230 and it can scale to 229 Tb so this maybe something you might
want to look into. Note also that a 5230 can be either a Master or Media
server (all of mine are Media Servers) and the 5330 can only be a Media
server which is not a limiting factor in my opinion.
I won't get into the discussion of whose better, NetBackup,
EMC or Commvault because we are a Symantec NetBackup shop. I'll leave that
response alone and to those who wish to share their experiences.
Scott
>>> Mikhail Nikitin <mikhail.nikitin AT gmail DOT com> 11/15/2014
3:16 PM >>>
Couple of things to consider.
NBU Appliance is a media server plus a dedupe pool so it
can do offhost VMware backups over SAN whereas OST Appliances need a media
server. Some additional features like VMware instant recovery are not yet
available for OST partners.
You can attach Data Domain to the back of NBU Appliances,
it is supported. So you can have both and avoid having extra media servers
for Data Domains.
I would get both and maintain some balance. This should
give you maximum discount from both Symantec and EMC.
Best regards, Mikhail
On 15/11/2014 3:46 am, "saiyed123" <nbu-forum AT backupcentral DOT com>
wrote:
Our company is considering NBU for backup solution using
backup appliance, our environment is mainly VMWARE ( 800+ guest) 30 + ESX
and 30+Solaris boxes.
We also need Exchange backups to improve and keep the backup over the san
when possible.
We will need data replicated offsite also.
Current proposal is Netbackup with 3 5230 appliances
I like the integration of Netbackup with Appliance but need to know those
who are currently using it thier experience with it.
Upgrades/Vmware backup & Exchange/share point/sql etc, netbackup Air
and accilirator products.
Why do you think Netbackup is better vs EMC or Commvault.
I understand there are some limitation with the Appliance in their size
and capabilities as compared to DD, i.e NFS/VTL
Would it be better to go with two netbackup appliance and one data domain
appliance so we can leverage all capabilities, Symantec is saying NFS capabilities
are coming next year and suggest we backup external NFS mount ( waists
of space and time).
So i need some opinion in this regard.
We are medium size company.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by bombay4u AT hotmail DOT com
via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
"PLEASE NOTE: The preceding information may be confidential or
privileged. It only should be used or disseminated for the purpose of
conducting business with Parker. If you are not an intended recipient,
please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete the
information from your system. Thank you for your cooperation."
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
