Kelvin Tan wrote, in part:
At the moment we are using TSM 4.2 but the management is looking at Veritas
Enterprise Netbackup
> and I have to convince them about staying put with TSM.
Why do you feel you "have to convince them"? Look with them (I guess
you are), and then (perhaps) you'll have technical arguments to back
your recommendation.
Has anybody move from TSM to Veritas Enterprise Netbackup 4.5 running on Unix??
I'm just now installing Netbackup 4.5 DataCenter on Solaris (and have
been using *SM for nearly 10 years).
Any advantages Veritas has over TSM?
For us, the hardware expense was roughly equivalent, but *SM was
significantly more expensive (software costs). Your experience with
pricing may vary from this significantly! Remember each product has a
number of separately licensed features; each product can be purchased
for wildly varying amounts of money.
The products and their documentation are significantly different. NB is
too new for me to contrast them (this month).
In searching the archives of this list, I found comments roughly
directed at this question, but most are quite old. There is a
relatively new comparison of features/terminology that may help you get
started. Whether one product "uses more tapes" than the other probably
depends as much on backup and retention policies as anything ... but I'm
just not sure yet.
Possible Veritas advantage: we expect we may add a remote "Media Server"
in the future. In our case, it appears the media server is more
attractive than a "complete" backup server at this location.
I will note that the documentation for each product is large, and an
excellent sedative. ;-)
> If TSM is that good how come it does not dominate the backup market?
*SM's "progressive incremental" is different from everyone else. It's
really a different mindset. This makes it difficult to compare
resources needed, since often a "requirement" is defined in terms of the
backup method.
cheers, wayne
--
Wayne T. Smith -- ADSM AT Maine DOT edu -- University of Maine System -- UNET
| 