lphilpot wrote:
>
> Years ago (before I became involved with Networker), my employer bought it
> directly from Legato. Then we later re-bought again from Sun as Solstice
> Backup. Reason? I was told that Sun's support was so much better than
> Legato's that it made the purchase worthwhile. That was prior to the 4.2.x
> days, which is when I started working with it. From what I've been told, we
> were using ArcServe prior to that, without much satisfaction. We've looked
> [briefly] at NBU, but Networker is a fraction of the price. There was no way
> we could justify the massive difference in $$$, plus the cost (and pain!) of
> conversion from Networker to NBU.
>
I started with SBU 6.0.3, which had lots of problems with our eventual library
choice (an L700 - also Sun re-branded since STK was still a separate entity at
the time). We finally tracked down both a library firmware problem *and* an
upgrade to 6.1.3 fixing just about every problem we had.
Personally, I haven't made many calls to Sun for Networker since our upgrade to
7.1.3 + AlphaStor 3.0.x - I've made more calls to StorageTek (and later Sun)
for both the tape library hardware and that blasted BladeStore disk array.
Most of my software calls since then were to EMC directly for the AlphaStor
component (and the ensuing issues with Networker integration). That's when I
finally learned about EMC's support quality - it being AS rather than
Networker, it was somewhat worse at times than past discussion here on the list
(that also got better, to their credit).
Of course, with both our pending removal of DLT (making the library
single-media again) and what I'm hearing about the 7.4.x GUI, it looks like
I'll finally be able to ditch AS. Hoping fervently here...
>
> I'm certainly happy to do everything I can through a GUI, given that it's
> a decent GUI, but so far Networker really hasn't delivered on that IMO,
> although nwadmin and now NMC are *workable* (but far from ideal). But, I
> still use them.
>
> However, please please please don't lock out my ability to
> command-line twiddle and script if the occasion calls for it. Most (but
> not all) of the scripts I've written are simply conveniences, time-savers.
> But I would sure hate to lose them to a locked-up interface. Sure, you
> have to understand and debug scripts, but once done they're great
> consistency-boosters and error-prevention devices, particularly in jobs
> that would otherwise involve significant admin interaction. Plus, it makes
> it much easier on me when I'm taking vacation to be able to say, "Just run
> 'xyz'" instead of going into multiple Networker commands. :-)
>
Most of my outside scripts are not time-savers; They're effectively an API into
Networker, based on its ability of manual backups. It gave us an easy way to
migrate an old procedure (manually juggled ufsdump groups) into the 'new'
format, and has grown significantly since then.
Almost all of my 'inside' scripts are for cloning (no surprise there). We also
have scripts generating reports required for our auditing needs. These are all
based on how AlphaStor integrates into Networker, so again its a bit of an
edge-case - but one that illustrates that Networker's ability to work with
other products require it to have *some* non-GUI elements for its customers to
customize as needed.
I feel strongly that all BU vendors should strive for this, if they're not
completed tight integration. You also shouldn't need to finish integration as
quickly if you have an easy enough mechanism out-of-GUI to compensate (emphasis
on 'easy' of course). Simpana is probably a good example of a product that I
would not expect many - nor need much - non-GUI tools due to its ground-up
integration. [If Oscar would like to chime in on that, I'm all ears.]
>
> > years before VTLs even existed. I don't regret that today, but will
> > give me future headaches if current feature trending - away from
> > adv_file - continue.
> >
>
> We're just now looking toward backup to disk (adv_file) with it in a
> casual test environment right now, so I'm still relatively new to the
> tech. What trends are you talking of?
>
The issue is, actually, the emergence of VTL itself. It can both prevent the
need for the extra configuration work required of adv_file (which is good!),
but also integrate features like de-dupe that now make adv_file look like a
'second-best' alternative.
It is also penalizing folks like myself who have the Tier 5 (unlimited) DBO
license; There is no need by management to consider upgrading to a VTL if the
old license cannot be changed in a 1:1 format. It's cheaper at this point to
just throw more adv_file out there (in my case, probably by using maxxed out
Thumpers).
That's why I'm wondering if de-dupe will ever make it to adv_file - what's the
point if everyone converts to VTL for 'big disk' anyway? Again, this is not
just a Networker problem - every BU vendor, both commercial and FOSS, will have
to look at this dual-standard and see how it wants to react.
--TSK
Tim Kimball
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
|This was sent by t.s.kimball AT gmail DOT com via Backup Central.
|Forward SPAM to abuse AT backupcentral DOT com.
+----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
|
