Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup protecting 30TB - 60TB NetApp over NDMP.
2008-04-21 10:47:44
You cannot NDMP to DSUs.
-Jonathan
-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
[mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu] On Behalf Of Jim Hall
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 9:55 AM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup protecting 30TB - 60TB NetApp over
NDMP.
What if I NDMP to a DSU on a NetBackup Media server?
Is that still unavailable for synths?
With SnapMirror, I believe that requires us investing more money with
NetApp.
Thanks,
Jim
--- "Tharp, Trey" <Trey.Tharp AT allstate DOT com> wrote:
> Short answer = SnapMirror, then backup that mirror filer for
> days/weeks if you need to. Once your initial mirror is done, it's only
> the block-level changes from that point. Also, if you are using NDMP
> direct backups, where the filer has tape connectivity, then synthetic
> backups are not available.
>
> NDMP is a horrible protocol and once your filers start to grow to
> these sizes and beyond backups become difficult at best.
> SnapMirror works
> great and once you get it to that cheaper-disk destination filer, you
> can spin to tape.
>
> -Trey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu]
> On Behalf Of Jim Hall
> Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 8:38 AM
> To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
> Subject: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup protecting 30TB - 60TB NetApp over
> NDMP.
>
> I am a "newb" to the list. I have some experience with NetBackup 5.1
> MP4.
>
> Anyways, I have an interesting problem. I have a NetApp GX system that
> needs to be protected. It looks like the best method would be to
> backup the unit using NDMP. The problem we are running into,
> theoretically at this moment as we design the backup system, is the
> limitation of the cluster interconnect and the ability to move up to
> 30TB, and in time 60TB of data across a 2GB FC link to a tape storage
> library. Doing the math, we would never be able to use the netapp for
> what it was designed for as the cluster-interconnects would be
> continuously saturated. The reason for this (and this is something I
> inherited) is that even though there are 4 Heads, 1 Head is the owner
> of a metadata volume that pretty much encompasses the entire unit, so
> 75% of the data has to come across the cluster interconnect (this is
> limited to 2Gb).
>
> We could re-arch the FS to balance across all 4 Head nodes, but we
> still have a 2Gb limitation per node as that is the fastest FC card
> available for these guys.
>
> My idea is to implement some kind of synthetic full strategy. That is,
> move as much data as possible for an initial full to tape (we have a
> two week outage coming up in a couple months), then create a disk
> stage where we can store incrementals. As long as the daily change
> rate allows us to move the incrementals in say 8hrs or so (across Gbe
> or FC), I think we would be fine. The question I have for everyone is,
> how long should I expect it to take for 4 LTO4 drives in combination
> with incrementals on say a thumper, to generate a weekly full to tape
> (lets be harsh and say we have a 10% change rate throughout the week).
> I want to start at 30TB today and scale to 60TB over the next
> 18-24mos.
>
> Anyone have similar experiences?
>
> What I am looking at is possibly using a x4500 as a combined media
> server and disk storage unit.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Veritas-bu maillist -
> Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
>
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
|
|