Hi Jonathan,
> We're a big Dell shop here in the US and I've got boxes nearing end of
> life / on their 5th and 6th year of warranty support and Dell has had no
> issues getting hardware to me within the support guidelines (4hr or Next
> Business.)
I don't think they care much about us Aussies !!!! To be honest we're
probably a small enterprise market when you compare us to the US.
Dom
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin, Jonathan [mailto:JMARTI05 AT intersil DOT com]
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:17 PM
To: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
We're a big Dell shop here in the US and I've got boxes nearing end of life
/ on their 5th and 6th year of warranty support and Dell has had no issues
getting hardware to me within the support guidelines (4hr or Next Business.)
Granted we don't buy extended support for most of our machines / we run our
own "parts shop" with decommissioned hardware. I'll agree however that Sun
hardware seems to last forever. I've got several ultra1-2s from 199X still
running strong with an occasional disk failure years after their Dell
counterparts have had darn near every part swapped.
As far as Sun versus Linux, we ported a mission critical application from
Sun to Redhat on Dell after running processor comparisons. At the time and
for the money the current Intel chip was toasting the current Sparc from a
processing load and financial standpoint. I don't keep up with the current
Sparcs and I haven't tested any of the Solaris X86 but I can definitely see
Sun having turned that around by now.
-Jonathan
________________________________
From: veritas-bu-bounces AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu on behalf of Dominik
Pietrzykowski
Sent: Thu 10/4/2007 10:21 PM
To: Edson Noboru Yamada
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solari s
Edson,
You get what you pay for and I compared the SUN V40z (when they came out) to
an equivalent IBM (x345 ????, can't remember) and it was 35% faster and only
a few thousand more.
We ran apps, DBs and some encryption software and it was a no brainer. This
was all on windows but we also ran tests on Solaris x86 and Redhat and found
Redhat had poor support for what we wanted to do. We couldn't get plugins
for the database we used etc etc. We also found that filesystem (about 5%)
and CPU (15% for multi thread work) was better on the Solaris x86 system.
Just curious to know what sort of benchmarking you did ??
You'll also find that there is a lot more H/W, OS, DB support for Solaris
from Veritas than there is on RH Linux but not if you mean Linux in general.
I guess some of the SPARC gear has been expensive in the past but when you
look at the T2000s and use them for what they are designed for, they are
very impressive and cost effective as well. You also can't compare some of
the multi domain boxes such as the E6900 up to the E25K, they are expensive
but for large enterprise business critical Apps I would only use them or a
mainframe.
I guess you can buy Dell hardware and I have in the past only to find that
hardware failure rate was higher and part supply was pathetic. We ended up
swapping out the Dell server for a SUN/HP(can't remember) because we
couldn't get the same motherboard again. They seem to change the parts all
the time. This is my experience in Aus and I'm not sure if it's the same in
the US or other places ???
Answering one of Aleksandr's original questions, in particular the user base
part:
> I think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user base
for Solaris.
I'd love to see some stats from Symantec but I'm guessing there are a lot of
people out there using Solaris for their master. In addition to that there
would be HPUX, AIX and windows. I'm guessing the rest would be minorities.
Finally, these are my opinions coming from what I've seen in the past in the
various places I have worked at.
Regards,
Dominik
BTW I currently work in a SUN Solaris / HP Windows environment. (with
sprinkles of VMS, AIX, HPUX) all being or going to be backed up via
Netbackup. Also if anyone is curious we have tested the VMS client and it
works fine.
________________________________
From: Edson Noboru Yamada [mailto:enyamada AT gmail DOT com]
Sent: Friday, 5 October 2007 11:00 AM
Cc: veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] NetBackup on Linux (RH4) vs. NetBackup on Solaris
I dont think so.
Sun machines are very, very expensive. With the same (or less) amount of
money you can
buy an excellent Intel based machine (with more memory, more CPUs etc) and
Linux with a so much better performance.
I see no difference in support from Veritas for Solaris or Linux. My
opinion, of course.
regards
On 10/4/07, Aleksandr Nepomnyashchiy < anepomn AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
Dear NetBackup Experts!
I am planning upgrade of NetBackup 3.4. Which platform should I choose?
Solaris has been a primary platform for NetBackup for many years. I
think there should be less bugs, better support and much wider user
base for Solaris.
Is this indeed the case?
Thank you,
Aleksandr
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
<mailto:Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu>
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu AT mailman.eng.auburn DOT edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
|
