ADSM-L

Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec

1998-09-17 09:52:31
Subject: Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec
From: Dan Giles <Dan_Giles AT MANULIFE DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:52:31 -0400
The ADSM trace facility will give you this information. Setting the
traceflags=instr_client_detail will give you a breakdown of how long the
adsm client spends in each operation (network, file i/o, etc).

I should also suspect that V3 of adsm should improve you small file restore
times.

Dan Giles
Application Specialist
Manulife Financial, Corporate
Phone: 416-926-3549 Fax: 416-926-5234





From: Bill Colwell <bcolwell AT DRAPER DOT COM> on 09/14/98 06:56 PM GMT

Please respond to "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>

To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:    (bcc: ADSM)
Subject:  Re: ADSM versus Arcserve and Backup Exec




There are so many pieces involved in tuning for a fast restore.  It would
be
nice to know how fast each piece could theoretically go.  In this case it
would be nice if someone (IBM?) supplied a program which could run on many
platforms that would read an input stream of file names and sizes and then
allocate the file and write random data of the input size.  This would test
the speed of the filesystem and be one of the baselines for estimating
restore time.  When a restore is going badly, it might help point the blame
finger in the right direction.

A logical source for the input file would be the output of 'dsmc q backup'.
I think it would help us plan for restores of large servers.

Another Tool for baselining would be to run a restore into  the bitbucket,
i.e. exercise the server and the network, but not the filesystem.

one more would be to have the server do everything it does for a restore
but
not send it out over the network.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bill Colwell
Bill Colwell
C. S. Draper Lab
Cambridge, Ma.
bcolwell AT draper DOT com
-----------------------------------------------------------
In <19980914142949.13666.rocketmail AT send103.yahoomail DOT com>, on 09/14/98
In <19980914142949.13666.rocketmail AT send103.yahoomail DOT com>, on 09/14/98
   at 07:29 AM, Dan Kronstadt <dkronsta AT YAHOO DOT COM> said:

>Dave - I would be interested in getting some more info about your restore
>tests. We are happy with adsm except for one thing - a restore of a file
>server with several 100K files takes TOO LONG! I have yet to hear anyone
>say they can restore more than a gig or 2 an hour, when that is made up of
>files averaging 50K each. We are still testing, and the bottleneck may be
>Netware *allocating* that many files - but other vendors (arcserve, for
>example) claim faster restore times. Do you have any info on this kind of
a
>restore? Large files get restored fine.

>Thanks.
>Dan Kronstadt
>Warner Bros.
>dan.kronstadt AT warnerbros DOT com




>---Dave Larimer <david.larimer.hnj9 AT STATEFARM DOT COM> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>

>_________________________________________________________
>DO YOU YAHOO!?
>Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com