Networker

Re: [Networker] Other back-up products besides NetWorker

2008-12-18 14:29:42
Subject: Re: [Networker] Other back-up products besides NetWorker
From: Bruce Breidall <Bruce.Breidall AT CONCUR DOT COM>
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:27:04 -0800
Exactly the right questions to ask.

Remember, Legato was an acquisition, and EMC completely ignored that
product for years in both development efforts and support. Most of the
legato installations are part of a bigger deal, just like the celerra,
and usually "free".

They are really trying to make improvements now because they have to,
and it is getting better, but there are many other better choices.

It has never been an enterprise product.

People just starting a new backup environment will be happier with the
NW product at the current releases, than starting with the older levels,
but it still doesn't even make the chart in the top 10 best backup
products in computerworld.

-----Original Message-----
From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU] On
Behalf Of Joe N. Wallace
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 12:58 PM
To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
Subject: Re: [Networker] Other back-up products besides NetWorker

One quiestion I think is relevant here:

Why choose EMC Networker?

Where is Networker stronger thant the competetors mentioned (Netbackup,
Commvault, Dataprotector, TSM)

Where are the weak sides of Networker?

Is any one superiour to another?

>From my experience Networker is not a champion in any field. Sometimes I
think it's EMC's excuse for making a backup product, being such a data
protection company and all.

2008/12/18 Fazil Saiyed <Fazil.Saiyed AT anixter DOT com>

> Hello,
> I think HP, Commvault  are worthy competitors, when evaluating backup
> products , existing OS expertise at hand, hardware requirement, DR
> capabilities, ability to effectively manage hardware, Tapes, reporting
&
> config changes should be paramount.Backup environment is highly
criticized
> upon failures and it would be prudent to have workaround, procedures
to
> correct issues on the spot and recovery failed backups, this means
even
> not so backup savvy operations staff may need to intervene as its 24X7
> availability, the software which allows workaround, fixes with minimum
> admin intervention may just win out.
> To Networkers defense, i have seen more improvement in last year then
> within last 10, but it still needs to be enhanced much more,
specifically
> in Tape,reporting & DR.Networker VCB backups have improved with
subsequent
> versions above 7.3.
> Meanwhile, not much enhancement in NDMP support is forthcoming from
any
> vendor.
> To my knowledge only Netbackup can do one shot VCB backups &
deduplication
> support is good.
> Commvault is an excellent designed product, I  have not seen actual
> performance but has very comprehensive tool set & is well integrated,
> Licensing can be challenging & confusing, for everyone i have talked
to
> they are pleased with Commvault ( Uses SQL server for it's dB)
> HP Dataprotector finished second by narrow margin compared to
Commvault
> recently in one of the study and may be worth looking into.
> I think some form of Dedupe, weather it's Data Domain\Avamar or other
> integration and support for FC within Dedupe environment may be highly
> desirable, as there are promising results from VCB dedupe as well as
what
> dedupe in general can do to enhance backup & replication capabilities.
> HTH
>
>
>
>
>
> Bruce Breidall <Bruce.Breidall AT CONCUR DOT COM>
> Sent by: EMC NetWorker discussion <NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU>
> 12/18/2008 09:42 AM
> Please respond to
> EMC NetWorker discussion <NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU>; Please
respond
> to
> Bruce Breidall <Bruce.Breidall AT CONCUR DOT COM>
>
>
> To
> NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: Other back-up products besides NetWorker
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Define expensive...
>
> Keeping NW running is a lot harder and painful than any of those other
> products mentioned.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU]
On
> Behalf Of Conrad Macina
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 4:15 AM
> To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> Subject: Re: [Networker] Other back-up products besides NetWorker
>
> This question comes up from time to time. I don't know anything about
> DataProtector and Commvault, but you can search the list archives and
> you'll
> find references.
>
> NetBackup appears to be more complete than NetWorker. A lot of things
> that
> are licensed separately in NetWorker are included "out of the box" in
> NetBackup. For example, open file management and tape drive sharing.
But
> the
> impression I've received from other posts (again, search the archives)
> is
> that for most users, NetBackup ends up being more expensive. I would
> imagine
> that if you actually used all the features it might end up being
> competitive.
>
> Conrad Macina
> Pfizer, Inc.
>
>
>
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 09:52:41 +0000, Murphy, Brendan (DBO)
> <Brendan.P.Murphy AT HP DOT COM> wrote:
>
> >DataProtector ... it's cheap, licensing isn't complicated & it does
> everything Networker can. I suspect this is a key reason why EMC have
> been
> attempting to simplify their licensing & adjust pricing.
> >http://www.hp.com/go/dataprotector
> >
> >Veritas NetBackup .... Now owned by Symantec. Don't really know about
> price, but again it does everything Networker does.
> >http://www.symantec.com/business/netbackup
> >
> >CommVault Galaxy .. Again pricing & liecensing unknown but does the
job
> >http://www.commvault.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Kind Regards,
> >Brendan Murphy,
> >HP Services Software Consultant | Tru64 ASE, ITIL, RHCE | Mob: +353
87
> 2361778 | Email : Brendan.P.Murphy AT hp DOT com
> >Postal Address: Hewlett-Packard Ireland Limited, Liffey Park
Technology
> Campus, Barnhall Road, Leixlip, County Kildare.
> >Registered Office: Hewlett-Packard Ireland Limited 63-74 Sir John
> Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 2.   Registered Number: 34508
> >The contents of this message and any attachments to it are
confidential
> and
> may be legally privileged. If you have received this message in error,
> you
> should delete it from your system immediately and advise the sender.
> To
> any recipient of this message within HP, unless otherwise stated you
> should
> consider this message and attachments as "HP CONFIDENTIAL".
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: EMC NetWorker discussion [mailto:NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU]
> On
> Behalf Of tcassid AT kimball DOT com
> >Sent: 17 December 2008 16:20
> >To: NETWORKER AT LISTSERV.TEMPLE DOT EDU
> >Subject: [Networker] Other back-up products besides NetWorker
> >
> >We use NetWorker as our back-up produce but was wondering if there
are
> any
> >other back-up products out there in the market that are pretty equal
> but
> >cost less to use.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >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
>
> 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
>
>
> 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

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>