OS Selection for NetBackup

[Fishperro]

We are currently designing a deployment stratagy for NetBackup and would like some feedback as to what operating system we should use. We currently run Windows and Solaris in our environment, but have no real data as to which platform is better for NetBackup. The plan is to have a media server at each of our two main locations with all backups being send to a SAN (EMC CX600 at each location)then we will archive the data off the SAN to tape for disater recovery. We will have a seperate master server. Currently the only glaring fact is that Solaris cost more, but I would love to get any feedback or information from people who have knowledge or experiance working with the two systems.

Thanks,
Robert

 

[PGPhantom]

Master Server - Use Windows 2000 - Far easier to configure and manage and reboot etc when services are tied up. BUT ... DO NOT, under any circumstances, install any tape deive on the master server - You will hear conflicting ideas on this but I have been there and done that and had far too many issues.

Media server - If at all possible - Use Solaris - Solaris can handle larger packets for data transfer thus making for faster backups.

 

[comtec17]

I agree with PGPhantom with Windows 2000 being easier to install but I would have to go with Solaris as a Master Server just because it will simply out perform Windows and your database will be much faster to get info for restores.

 

[PGPhantom]

True - It will out perform but for the speed benefit vs. ease of install etc, we opted for W2K. Besides, Veritas did a pretty good job of speeding up restores by converting the images to binary format - Significantly faster than the older text format.

It will basically coome down to preference. Same rule though - DO NOT install a tape device on the master even if it is Solaris.

 

[Fishperro]

Thank you for your responses so quickly. I have asked several Veritas techs this question and most have said, "let me get back to you" but one did reply with stability as a reason. Do you all have any input on how stable or unstable either platform is? Once again thanks for your input.

 

[comtec17]

Microsoft is Microsoft, you have to take it as it is. I have had a Master Server running on Win2k before and the OS was not stable at all.

Sun has been the most stable for me. My servers have been up for 12+ monthes without a reboot.

 

[PGPhantom]

Stability - Ahhhh, Microcrash. Oops, sorry - Did I say that?

In all honesty, I prefer MS for simplicity but my master server is rebooted once a month, minimum, sometimes twice. I have a scheduled window for that where nothing is happening.

 

[sftx]

>PGPhantom (IS/IT--Manageme) Jan 6, 2004
>Master Server - Use Windows 2000 - Far easier to configure >and manage and reboot etc when services are tied up. >BUT ... DO NOT, under any circumstances, install any tape >deive on the master server - You will hear conflicting >ideas on this but I have been there and done that and had >far too many issues.

I am new to Veritas and was wondering why you wouldn't want to have drives attached to the Master Media Server.

Thanks,
SteveF

 

[PGPhantom]

Depending on your environment, network etc. We have some 500+ jobs running every night - Averaging 50-60 TB's a month of backed up data. The load on the master is fairly high and tape devices eat up CPU etc at a phenomenal rate. The master needs to have free resources for all the info coming in and in NBU 3.4.1 I had my master and media together - We have numerous network timeout issues etc. When I upgraded to 4.5, I kept them separate and the failure rate has decreased substantially.

 

[sofiabpm]

Hi,
Use for all of your needs Solaris - master and media servers. Windows tend to freeze up right in the middle of the backup jobs. In my environment we have both flavors and Solaris can stay up for 600 days while Windows will crash many tames during that period. For the installation and support Solaris is not much different from Windows in this days. Solaris give you a grater flexibility in configuration and performance.
I’m MCSE and I still think Solaris is much better for NetBackup no matter what everyone else say about it. When you have a cross OS platform there is much difficult to streamline the environment, support etc.
Good Look

 

[SimonPeh]

Hi Guys,

I have heard and see all your recommendations. So what would be a proper specs for Sun server dedicated to do backup from a SANs storage with Netbackup ? Does it need to have a dual CPU, ram etc ?

Currently, are evaluating options to install Veritas or CA Brightstor backup for my SANS solution. Anybody cares to share some thoughts ?

Thanks
SP

 

[TimUK]

Always overspec the hardware.

My setup is as follows:

Two sites each with two Sun Enterprise V880 Veritas Clustered Master/Media Servers running Solaris 8. x8 CPU in each, 8Gb RAM in each, SAN disk holds the database.

Solaris (or whatever is your favourite Unix) is the OS of choice for Master and Media servers as much as possible. It costs more money, but the payoff is stability and resilience, in my experience.

Single sites with ten clients and a 2 drive/30 slot library are fine under Win2k Masters and Netbackup Businesscenter. Once you get to enterprise levels then Solaris and Datacentre (or NBU 5 even) (or whatever is your favourite Unix) is the way to go, in my humble opinion.

Good luck - Tim

 

[sgoldsmith]

I agree with the majority on this thread that Solaris is better for a number of reasons:

Stability and performance being the main 2.

However, you have to remember that scripting / ftpin' / mailing etc are included as standard in Unix and therefore it gives you more opertunity to customise your environment; creating your own reports etc without the need for addiotnal tools / skills.

On the hardware side of things this all comes down to size and requirements.

How much data are you trying to backup and whats your window to do this?

Tim is correct that overspecing the servers is a good idea:

Guidelines are that you will need 1 CPU per HBA card you are driving.
Veritas NB Datacenter should have a minimum of 512 Mb RAM for good running (but with ram being relatively cheap throw a lot at it 2+ Gb).
1 2 Gb HBA should drive no more than 3/4 drives (LTO or 9840/9940) more for older drive technology.
Always look for fast / high capcity network cards for the Master / Media servers as they field a lot of network traffic between on and other.
You have to do the sums from the internals of the server through to the disk / network / cpu performance of the client through to the tape drive to gague where your bottleneck will be and then (if not excepatble) look to improve that area with either tweaking or hardware investment. For example the following is true:

In a 100 Mb network backup environment the Network is likely to be the bottle neck.
In a Gigabit network environment the network is still likely to be the bottleneck although the disk and CPU start to be a factor.
In a SAN based backup environment the disk is likely to the bottleneck. Look for the fastest disk layout and RAID / connection type you can as the high end tape drives can usually work faster than most disk subsystems!

If you can provide the approx figures for expected backup size and window you have to back this up (plus any info on the client servers you are trying to backup) then prehaps we can all have a look and throw some hardware suggestions about!!

Simon Goldsmith
Storage Engineer