Re: [ADSM-L] TSM vs. Legato Networker Comparison

2007-08-01 10:42:27
Subject: Re: [ADSM-L] TSM vs. Legato Networker Comparison
From: Richard Rhodes <rrhodes AT FIRSTENERGYCORP DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 09:40:21 -0400
"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 07/30/2007
03:00:02 PM:
> Here's some perspective from someone who's currently transitioning from
> Networker to TSM.

Dave, thanks for the very informative email.

Many years ago we ran Legato Networker.  I've stayed out of this discussion
because my
knowledge of Networker is VERY old.  I believe we were running the last v5
release - v6
had just been released and we didn't install it.   This was way before EMC
Legato.  I tell our EMC reps (we use EMC disk systems) that I have fond
memories of
running Networker.  I actually liked it in many ways.

Why did we get rid if it?  That's complicated . . . .

1)  Bad support.  At that time, before EMC purchased it, Legato support was
bad.  I have
never before or since experience such bad support.  You know things are bad
when the
head of the company writes a letter to all customers apologizing for the
bad support!!!

2)  Licensing costs.  We originally just backed up IBM AIX systems.  We
were about
to start consolidating multiple different backup system for Windows,
Netware and some
odd ball systems.  If we used networker, our
costs were going to explode for all the nickel-and-dime licensing issues

. . . but . . .

None of those were going to make up for the cost of converting.  What
REALLY hurt us was client scheduling, client management, and
remote backups.

Our Networker system had grown to around 100 clients.  I was the only
person managing it.  Since Networker only wrote straight to tape
(the initial piece of disk staging had just been added, but was
unusable), I was spending an
awful lot of time juggling schedules.  Oh how I hated that -
Fulls, differentials, incrementals.  Some on weekly fulls, others
on monthly fulls, a few on multi-month fulls.  Many servers had
multiple node setups to allow different schedules for different
filesystems with different retentions.   Trying to balance
all this in pools for timely expiration.  (I remember
the problems of mixed expiration perionds on the same tape very well!)
Trying to balance
the schedules so as to keep enough load to keep the tape drives
spinning at full speed (multiplex backups).  At about 100 clients
I was buried in managing what amounted to a small Networker setup.

We had decided to do centralized backups for remote sites across
our wan.  We were not going to put tape drives and libraries
out at remote sites.  So, given that Networker had to do
full backups on some schedule, as the remote servers grew the backup
traffic started to kill the wan, and, killed the tape drives
with slow throughput.  (I believe Networker now has synthetic
full support.)

We had to do something different.  We did a study!!!  FOR OUR NEEDS, TSM
quickly climbed to the top of the list.  Incremental forever with
disk staging made scheduling a breeze and remote backups doable.

There is much I don't like about TSM, but to this point it fits our
needs very well.  And this is my recommendation - CAREFULLY analyze
your needs as you look at other backup programs.  Make sure you
can map your needs to the products features!!!

Again, this all about a very old release of Network.  Please don't
apply these comments to the current release!!  I'm just trying
to tell the story of why we changed in the hope that it might
be of some little benefit.


The information contained in this message is intended only for the
personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an
agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that you have received this document in error
and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately, and delete
the original message.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>