Same here, we have more than a few clients running NAS solutions going up
to I believe about 200TB and the backups are done via a windows server
connected to cifs shares.
file attributes might become an issue if the NAS is sharing via CIFS and
NFS but other than that it seems to work okay, it's a pity (but logical)
that you can't run journalled backups but at least you can backup 10+
shares at once, still, if you have many small files backups can take a long
time to complete and don't undersize the server that will be running the
backups either.
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 12:04 AM, Skylar Thompson <skylar2 AT u.washington DOT
edu>
wrote:
> I agree, we use this approach as well. NDMP has scaling issues, doesn't
> play nicely with TSM incremental backups or include/exclude lists, and ties
> you into a single storage vendor for both backups and restores. That last
> point is particularly scary for anyone writing DR plans, since who knows
> what storage you'll end up with after a real disaster.
>
> On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 09:27:06PM +0000, Thomas Denier wrote:
> > You might be better off having proxy systems access the NAS contents
> using CIFS and/or NFS, and having the proxy systems use the backup/archive
> client to back up the NAS contents.
> >
> > My department supports Commvault as well as TSM (the result of a merger
> of previously separate IT organizations). The Commvault workload includes a
> NAS server on the same scale as yours. Our Commvault representative advised
> us to forget about Commvault's NDMP support and use the Commvault analog of
> the approach described in the previous paragraph.
> >
> > The subject of NAS backup coverage arose at an IBM training/marketing
> event for the Spectrum family of products. The IBM representative who
> responded was not as bluntly dismissive of NDMP as our Commvault
> representative, but he sounded decidedly unenthusiastic when he mentioned
> NDMP as a possible approach to NAS backups.
> >
> > Thomas Denier,
> > Thomas Jefferson University
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU] On Behalf
> Of Remco Post
> > Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 16:41
> > To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> > Subject: [ADSM-L] ndmp
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I???m working on a large TSM implementation for a customer who also has
> HDS NAS systems, and quite some data in those systems, more than 100 TB
> that needs to be backed up. We were planning to go 100% directory container
> for the new environment, but alas IBM???s ???best of both worlds" (DISK &
> FILE) doesn???t support NDMP and I don???t like FILE with deduplication
> (too much of a hassle), so is it really true, are we really stuck with
> tape? ISn???t it about time after so many years that IBM finally gives us a
> decent solution to backup NAS systems?
> >
> > --
> >
> > Met vriendelijke groeten/Kind Regards,
> >
> > Remco Post
> > r.post AT plcs DOT nl
> > +31 6 248 21 622
> > The information contained in this transmission contains privileged and
> confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person
> named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this
> communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
> of the original message.
> >
> > CAUTION: Intended recipients should NOT use email communication for
> emergent or urgent health care matters.
> >
>
> --
> -- Skylar Thompson (skylar2 AT u.washington DOT edu)
> -- Genome Sciences Department, System Administrator
> -- Foege Building S046, (206)-685-7354
> -- University of Washington School of Medicine
>
|
