Networker

Re: [Networker] Inquiry about upgrading NetWorker server

2007-04-30 07:52:12
Subject: Re: [Networker] Inquiry about upgrading NetWorker server
From: Conrad Macina <conrad.macina AT PFIZER DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:53:48 -0400
I posed that same question to Sun last fall: "What is your recommendation
for a server/storage node in a backup environment?" Their reply was the
T2000. They said, "It's designed for high-I/O situations such as backups." 

I checked the specs and I have to agree it looks like it'll do a much better
job than the vX80 series. We are just beginning to test one in our
environment. We should be done in a couple of weeks. I'll let you know if we
find any surprises.

Conrad Macina
Pfizer, Inc.



On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:36:05 -0400, Stan Horwitz <stan AT TEMPLE DOT EDU> wrote:

>We are poised to make some major improvements to our NetWorker
>environment this spring. In addition to the changes for which I have
>already received funding, I recently found out that I might also be
>able to get funding to replace our aging NetWorker server.
>
>Our NetWorker environment consists of one NetWorker 7.2.1 Power
>Edition server running on a Sun Fire V480R with 8GB of RAM and two
>dual core 1GHz processors with Solaris 9. We use this server across
>our enterprise to back up several TB of data nightly (mostly email
>and web content). We are backing up around 300 clients nightly and we
>plans to add more servers onto the nightly backup schedule. This
>V480R has one 1GB network line into it for most of our servers that
>sits on our DMZ, but it also has a separate 1GB line going to it
>that's on the same side as our firewall.
>
>Our V480R is connected via fibre to a Sony PetaSite which has 14 S-
>AIT tape drives.. Alll tape drives are attached via a Qlogic 5200 SAN
>switch. One of my primary goals is to push data at our tape drives
>much faster because we are significantly underutilizing our Sony tape
>drives' throughput.
>
>We also have a Sun Enterprise 450 with Solaris 9 doing duty as a
>storage node. The E450 is connected to a Qualstar tape library, which
>is in another building separate from our NetWorker server and our
>Sony PetaSite. This storage node and tape library sit on the secure
>side of our firewall and are used exclusively to back up confidential
>medial and business data. The metadata for these confidential backups
>gets sent to our V480R via its network drop within the firewall's
>secure zone. Both the E450 and the Qualstar tape library are due to
>be replaced in the next month or two. We will replace this storage
>node with a Dell rack mount server running Red Hat Linux. The Dell
>server has already been delivered; the tape library is still out to bid.
>
>In another month or two, we'll also add a new Sun X4500 running Red
>Hat Linux as a storage node, sharing our Sony PetaSite. The X4500 is
>here already. We plan to use machine partially for file-level disk-to-
>disk-to-tape backups and to take some of the load off our V480R. We
>are also hoping to use our X4500 for disk-to-disk-to-tape NDMP
>backups to four of the PetaSite's tape drives that are reserved only
>for NDMP.
>
>What I am finding is that our server is heavily overloaded a good
>deal of the time and I believe its posing a significant bottleneck
>for our NDMP backups. We use NDMP to back up Mirapoint email servers.
>Although I am sure the X4500 will take some of the processor load and
>free up some network bandwidth, off our NetWorker server, I am
>unclear on how much relief we will get.
>
>With that in mind, I want to replace it with a more powerful server,
>although I am unclear on the availability of funds for this project.
>Management offered to provide funds to replace our V480R last year,
>but I declined. Now I am ready to move forward with that move. My
>preferred option is to get a Sun Fire V490 to replace the V480R;
>however, I am hesitant to request a V490 because of its high price
>tag. For this reason, I am looking at a less expensive T2000 with
>16GB of RAM and a 1.2GHz SPARC II processor. I figure that we could
>replace our NetWorker server (V480R) with a T2000 and then demote the
>V480R to a storage node. I have plenty of ports on my SAN switch to
>do this.
>
>What I am wondering is if this is a good idea or not or if anyone on
>this list can suggest a better option to upgrade our V480R with a
>more potent server.
>
>After I finish all these server changes, I intend to upgrade to the
>latest NetWorker version, but I figure I might as well concentrate my
>effort on the hardware upgrades/additions first while waiting for EMC
>to come out with NetWorker 7.3.3 or 4.
>
>If anyone has any comments, please let me know.
>
>To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
>type
"signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this
list. You can access the archives at
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
>via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
>=========================================================================

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>