This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C66487.83FCEE33
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Greg
=20
My opinion is that both products work well if:
=20
- The backups solution is architected correctly - Hardware and
software sizing and configurations must be accurate and account for
growth
- The administrators are well educated in the use of the
solution
=20
I have seen shops move from one to the other simply because they are
dissatisfied with one only to find out the other has just as many
issues. This is usually due to poor architecture.
=20
One thing to note is that you may have to keep legacy software from
either product around. This is because, as far as I know, you cannot
convert your legacy backups from one format to the other short of
complete restore and re-backup. =20
=20
As Dean mentioned the functionality is about the same. There are
differences but for the most part they do the same thing. =20
=20
Monte
=20
________________________________
From: veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Dean
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 3:08 AM
To: Hindle, Greg
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] IBM Tivoli vs. Netbackup
=20
Greg
TSM is *very* different to NBU. One big difference is that it works on a
forever-incremental methodology. Although I believe these days it is
able to work in a Full/Incremental fashion as NBU does, just as NBU is
now able to do synthetic backups, which is similar to TSM.
There's also a fairly large housekeeping overhead with TSM. You need to
run "tape reclamation" to kind-of defrag your tapes, run catalog reorgs,
and that kind of stuff. But if you have it all setup correctly and keep
up with the housekeeping, TSM can be much more efficient than NBU.
Expect a steep learning curve, especially for someone who is used to
NBU.
A big factor for TSM is that it's based on mainframe software (DFHSM)
which has been around for .... 30 years or more? So it's fairly
reliable. IBM have been doing this kind of thing for a loooong time now.
In some ways, NBU has "grown up" from the single server, few clients,
single tape drive days, while TSM has "grown down" from the old
mainframe with dozens/hundreds of local tape drives, to today's
decentralised world.
Which is better? I don't know. I haven't touched TSM for a long time.
They both have their pros and cons.
Could you run both for a while and see how you feel after a few months?
Regs,
Dean
On 4/20/06, Hindle, Greg <Greg.Hindle AT constellation DOT com> wrote:
What is opinion to what is better? We are merging with another company
and they use Tivoli and we use netbackup. I don't know much about Tivoli
so I wanted to make a pros and cons between the two to give to my
management. Any ideas?
=20
Greg=20
>>> This e-mail and any attachments are confidential, may contain legal,
professional or other privileged information, and are intended solely
for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, do not use
the information in this e-mail in any way, delete this e-mail and notify
the sender. CEG-IP1
=20
=20
------_=_NextPart_001_01C66487.83FCEE33
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{margin-right:0in;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
pre
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.EmailStyle20
{font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Greg</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>My opinion is that both products =
work well
if:</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><font =
size=3D2
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>-<font size=3D1 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New =
Roman"'>
</span></font></span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The backups =
solution is
architected correctly – Hardware and software sizing and =
configurations
must be accurate and account for growth</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal style=3D'margin-left:.5in;text-indent:-.25in'><font =
size=3D2
color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>-<font size=3D1 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New =
Roman"'>
</span></font></span></font><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy =
face=3DArial><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The =
administrators are
well educated in the use of the solution</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I have seen shops move from one to =
the
other simply because they are dissatisfied with one only to find out the =
other
has just as many issues. This is usually due to poor =
architecture.</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>One thing to note is that you may =
have to
keep legacy software from either product around. This is because, =
as far as I
know, you cannot convert your legacy backups from one format to the =
other short
of complete restore and re-backup. </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>As Dean mentioned the functionality =
is
about the same. There are differences but for the most part they =
do the same
thing. </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Monte</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> </span></font></p>
<div>
<div class=3DMsoNormal align=3Dcenter style=3D'text-align:center'><font =
size=3D3
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=3D2 width=3D"100%" align=3Dcenter tabindex=3D-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><b><font size=3D2 face=3DTahoma><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font =
size=3D2
face=3DTahoma><span style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-admin AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] <b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:
bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Dean<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Thursday, April 20, =
2006
3:08 AM<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Hindle, Greg<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Cc:</span></b>
veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu<br>
<b><span style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [Veritas-bu] =
IBM
Tivoli vs. Netbackup</span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'>Greg<br>
<br>
TSM is *very* different to NBU. One big difference is that it works on a
forever-incremental methodology. Although I believe these days it is =
able to
work in a Full/Incremental fashion as NBU does, just as NBU is now able =
to do
synthetic backups, which is similar to TSM.<br>
<br>
There's also a fairly large housekeeping overhead with TSM. You need to =
run
"tape reclamation" to kind-of defrag your tapes, run catalog =
reorgs,
and that kind of stuff. But if you have it all setup correctly and keep =
up with
the housekeeping, TSM can be much more efficient than NBU.<br>
<br>
Expect a steep learning curve, especially for someone who is used to =
NBU.<br>
<br>
A big factor for TSM is that it's based on mainframe software (DFHSM) =
which has
been around for .... 30 years or more? So it's fairly reliable. IBM have =
been
doing this kind of thing for a loooong time now. In some ways, NBU has
"grown up" from the single server, few clients, single tape =
drive
days, while TSM has "grown down" from the old mainframe with =
dozens/hundreds
of local tape drives, to today's decentralised world.<br>
<br>
Which is better? I don't know. I haven't touched TSM for a long =
time.
They both have their pros and cons.<br>
<br>
Could you run both for a while and see how you feel after a few =
months?<br>
<br>
Regs,<br>
Dean</span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><span class=3Dgmailquote><font size=3D3 =
face=3D"Times New Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>On 4/20/06, <b><span =
style=3D'font-weight:bold'>Hindle,
Greg</span></b> <<a =
href=3D"mailto:Greg.Hindle AT constellation DOT
com">[email protected]=
om</a>>
wrote:</span></font></span></p>
<div>
<p><font size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>What
is opinion to what is better? We are merging with another company and =
they use Tivoli and we use netbackup. I don't know much about Tivoli so =
I wanted to make a pros and
cons between the two to give to my management. Any =
ideas?</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
<p><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>Greg</span></font>
</p>
<pre><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>>>> This e-mail and any attachments =
are confidential, may contain legal, professional or other privileged =
information, and are intended solely for the addressee. If you are =
not the intended recipient, do not use the information in this e-mail in =
any way, delete this e-mail and notify the sender. =
CEG-IP1</span></font></pre><pre><font
size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'> </span></font></pre></div>
</div>
<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
12.0pt'> </span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C66487.83FCEE33--
|
