Well, I *am* new to Netbackup, but we have a similar setup going
here and we're getting about 5mbs on full streaming backups using
NDMP (760 filer to a STK9710) ... and I have fully indexed backups
to restore from. Of course we are using the UNIX version of Netbackup
to backup those NT shares ... are you using the NT version, and is 
it different???

What is stopping you from having indexed clients with NDMP?

Client:            azXXXXX
Backup ID:         azXXXXX_0979695520
Class:             az25XXXXX
Class Type:        NDMP
Sched Label:       NetAppIncr
Schedule Type:     Differential Incremental Backup
Retention Level:   3 months (5)
Backup Time:       01/16/01 18:38:40
Elapsed Time:      004:54:28
Expiration Time:   04/19/01 18:38:40
Compressed:        no
Encrypted:         no
Kilobytes:         89701474
Number of Files:   510696

89.7gb in 5 hours ain't too shabby ... short incrementals show poor 
performance of course because the filer has to look for the files.


"Pearson, Kim (STP)" wrote:
> 

> 
>         1) The RESTORES are horrendous - no indexes, so the entire backup is
> "scanned" for the requested files/directories.
>         2) Can't share the DLT's with non-NDMP boxes, so they sit idle a lot
> of the time.
>         3) Differential Incremental (daily) backups are HUGE - NDMP doesn't
> look at the Archive bit, but rather "last accessed time". We back up
> approximately 20% every night as a result. Should be closer to 1-2%.
>         4) Proprietary tape format - not "generic" like tar or NT tape
> format. Need NDMP to restore - not good for DRP.
>         5) Direct attached tapes do not keep up with our UNIX "networked"
> speeds! Explain that one! They get about 17 GB/hour vs. our 20+ GB/hour.
> 
> So...that's why I hate NDMP, and in fact NAS. However, $ for $, NAS is hard
> to beat for file storage, which is why they are becoming so popular.
> 
> Kim
> 

-- 
Bradley W. Fisher
Motorola UNIX systems consultant