ADSM-L

Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec

1998-09-14 09:28:33
Subject: Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec
From: Dave Larimer <david.larimer.hnj9 AT STATEFARM DOT COM>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:28:33 -0500
An alternative suggestion on the use of ADSM, the issue is that you do not
wish to use ADSM over the network because of restore being too slow.  If
this is correct, I would give you an alternative suggestion.  Given that a
disaster situation is hopefully few and far between, backup all data via
ADSM through the network and in the event of an actual disaster, construct
a new box at the central site, restore it there and ship it to the remote
location.  The cost savings eliminating local software, tape library,
hardware and labor would be substantial.   In addition, when I evaluated
Arcserve, Backup Exec, and ADSM, I found the following:
Backup time:  (depending on how much data changes from day to day) I found
that overall ADSM came in first, followed closely            by Arcserve
and then by Backup Exec.
Restore time: (depending on severity of restore and network connectivity)
All three products performed about the same, with            ADSM having a
slight edge, due to it's strength as file restore software.  In ADSM, the
file is ready as soon as it        is restored.  This may not be the case
with the other two products.
Service Support: This is the part that I experienced the most variety, with
ADSM, I found the most support, followed by Arcserve         and then
Backup Exec a distance third.  Backup Exec's support fell off sharply
during off hours.
Cost savings: ADSM clearly came out ahead here in all categories.

I hope that this helps.

Dave Larimer
David.Larimer.HNJ9 AT StateFarm DOT com





From: O1=INET00/C=US/A=IBMX400/P=STATEFARM/DD.RFC-822=ADSM-L\@VM.MARIST.EDU
on 09/11/98 04:21:21 PM
To:   ADSM-L
cc:
Subject:  ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec

Help!

     There is a shift going on within our company where many Netware
servers are being consolidated to larger NT servers.  A large number of
these Netware soon to be NT servers are located in remote offices connected
to our statewide ATM backbone via T1 lines.  The new NT servers in the
remote offices will contain approximately 6 - 10 GB of user data.
In most cases we were not planning on backing up the remote NT machines to
a central ADSM server because it would take too long to restore an entire
machine in a disaster recovery scenario.  This means, for the remote
offices, local tape, probably a IBM 3570 library, would be used with the
standalone version of ADSM.  We also thought we might backup the 3570
storage pools to a central server for disaster protection.

     Our current enviroment is ADSM for MVS v3 backing up 100 clients all
within the Datacenter or close by.  Clients are AIX, SUN, HP, Windows NT
(Lotus Notes Servers), and 1 Netware server.   ADSM has been in used to
backup our UNIX servers for nearly 3 years.  Arcserve is currently used to
backup the Netware servers using a DAT tape drive attached to each server.
We standardized, or a least I thought we did, on using ADSM company wide
about a year and a half ago.

     Ok that's the background on to the problem.. A person from our
distributed computing group informed me today that they have pretty much
decided to go with Arcserve or Seagate Backup Exec to backup the remote
office servers.  This decision was made without my involvement and
shouldn't have been.. But that's a political issue.. The question I have
for you good people is has anyone out there done a side by side comparison
of the ADSM single server version versus Arcserve and/or Seagate Backup
Exec? Any ammo you can give me that shows ADSM is the better choice would
be GREATLY appreciated.  It is their feeling that ADSM is too slow and not
widely used in the industry for backing up Windows NT or Netware.


Thanks!
Jeff Connor
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.
Syracuse NY