Curtis,

To address your summary;

Frank




On 8/19/08 11:27 PM, Curtis Preston wrote:

If the VTLs I test could only supply data at 40 MB/s, I wouldn't recommend them 
either.  The ability of a disk device to stream to tape is job #1, AFAIC.  Just 
remember that not all VTLs are created equal.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not an AFTD hater.  I think they're fine for smaller 
shops that want an easy solution.  But when I get to a larger shop, I need the 
ability to make things go more concurrently, and I think it's possible to do 
that with a VTL and VERY difficult to impossible to do it with an AFTD.

VTLs aren't the end-all-be-all, and some of them are crap.  (The same is true 
of the disk systems behind a lot of AFTDs.)  They're also more management in a 
SMALL NW environment than AFTDs.  But in a large environment, where 
staging/cloning performance is king, I'll take a VTL any day.  Yes, I'll be 
doing some scripting, but at least I can clone/destage multiple backups at the 
same time.  That's NOT the case with an AFTD unless you make a bunch of them 
and that creates other management hassles, and decreases disk utilization.

I think the concurrent restore thing is a red herring.  Sure, you can't do two 
restores at once from a tape, but:

1. Most people don't do more than one restore a month, let alone more than one 
a day, let ALONE two at the same time.
2. Add to that the odds that the two restores you do at the same time would 
need the same tape at the same time. (Multiplexing would increase the chances, 
but one should not multiplex to virtual tapes.)
3. If you want better odds, just use smaller virtual tapes.  It costs you 
nothing, adds no management issues (like more AFTDs do), and significantly 
decreases the chance that two restores would be grabbing for the same tape.

So, to summarize:
1. I think it's easier to destage multiple backups simultaneously from a VTL 
than it is to do it from an AFTD, and that's something you do every night.
2. Performance counts.  If your device, regardless of type, can't stream your 
tape drive type, you bought the wrong one.
3. Sure I can do concurrent restores from the same "tape" with AFTDs and I 
can't with VTLs, but I don't think that happens much and if it does I can address it with 
smaller virtual tape sizes.

Isn't healthy discussion fun?

Curtis Preston | VP Data Protection GlassHouse Technologies, Inc. T: +1 760 710 2004 | C: +1 760 419 5838 | F: F: +1 760 710 2009 cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com | www.glasshouse.com

Infrastructure :: Optimized

-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On 
Behalf Of Francis Swasey
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:13 PM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Query in Staging from adv_file

With VTL, Networker limits you to one operation at a time per virtual Tape. I've heard tales that if you are lucky enough to issue two recover commands at the exact same instant, that NetWorker can be tricked into doing two restores from the same tape at once.

With the AFTD, you can do multiple concurrent writes and either multiple restores or a stage or a clone at the same time per AFTD. In my environment, I've tested a VTL and it was a lousy performer. I wasted an entire month and had to put up with a lot of pressure from the sales people who really wanted me to spend a small fortune on their appliance when they couldn't make it perform at even one third of the I/O performance of the AFTD on a NexSAN SATABeast.

If I had to do my weekly clones with a VTL that was flat out retrieving data at 35-38MB/second to write to LTO4 tape drives that can do 120MB/second -- I'd be looking for a new job! Thankfully, on my big fileservers with the big savesets, I'm pushing the LTO4's to their limits and my clones are finished in less than 24 hours. Back when I was doing clones from LTO4 to LTO4, these same clones ran for three days. If I was doing that with that bad VTL, I don't know that I'd successfully be able to clone the data during the week before the next round of weekend fulls were written and needed cloning.

In my environment, AFTD wins.

Frank

On 8/19/08 6:16 PM, Curtis Preston wrote:

Well, that significantly decreases the value of AFTDs over VTLs in
NetWorker, now doesn't it?

________________________________________________________
Curtis Preston | VP Data Protection
GlassHouse Technologies, Inc.

T: +1 760 710 2004 | C: +1 760 419 5838 | F: +1 760 710 2009
cpreston AT glasshouse DOT com | www.glasshouse.com

<http://www.glasshouse.com/> Infrastructure :: Optimized

________________________________

From: Francis Swasey [mailto:Frank.Swasey AT uvm DOT edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:22 PM

To: EMC NetWorker discussion; Curtis Preston
Subject: Re: [Networker] Query in Staging from adv_file

Sadly, no.  The nsrstage will serialize their use of the single RO side
of the AFTD.  With multiple nsrstage processes trying to access the same
AFTD, you will get alerts that they are waiting for the AFTD.RO
device/volume.

Frank

On 8/19/08 5:10 PM, Curtis Preston wrote:

I understand that each staging process will only use one drive at a
time, but is there a way that he can get more than one staging process

reading from the same AFTD? What if he doesn't do it automatically, but kicks off several nsrstaging

processes manually?  Is that possible?  Will they then each read some
backups and stage them to tape?  (I haven't done much with nsrstage.)

--
Frank Swasey                    | http://www.uvm.edu/~fcs
Sr Systems Administrator        | Always remember: You are UNIQUE,
University of Vermont           |    just like everyone else.
 "I am not young enough to know everything." - Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)


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