We have had a chance to side-by-side a 5220 with a DD860 for the past couple of years and each has its high and low points.
Most of that time we didn't have a backup replication solution in place and depended on duplicating back to tape off of each device for offsite storage. The Data Domain is hands down much better at reconstructing its data for this purpose. I do understand this isn't normally an intended operation, but pulling even less than 10 images off of the 5220 at one time was work that produced significant load on it as to impede its normal operation. The hardware reliability of our 5220 atrocious. I can't tell you how many raid cards have been switched out of this thing. If we have had a couple of disk failures on the DD860 the past couple of years, but I always find out about those after the fact. My datacenter people tell me that EMC was here to switch it out and that is that. We did place another 5220 at our DR site with a DD4200 and implemented AIR. This is the by far the best thing we ever did for our backup environment. The remote 5220 does well as a remote master server handling the OST device and keeping track of images coming in. Alleviating the need to send offsite tapes was a boon to the process overall. We had a DR exercise last week and having everything there already without the need of propping up a tape library and a server to manage it was well worth the overall effort. The 5220 performs well as a tape media server, again another function that it more than likely isn't intended to be used for. Performing as a media server for the Data Domain does well also. We depend on the local 5220 to handle the VMware backups over SAN and it doesn't keep up with what we need. It is just not built to handle the load. Right now, I am in the market for another device, and I am going to probably lean toward the Data Domain with another media server that uses 10gb interfaces. We have really had to limit what we send to the 5220, and we are realizing that we may even have to pare that back. We really liked it for the VMware capabilities, but performance is an issue and we may be finding ourselves using the Data Domain for some of that load as well. If you have a large VMware install base, you will be well served to perform some load testing with proof of concept devices. We were burnt by not doing enough of that ahead of time. In this space, performance and functionality go hand-in-hand at times. From: "Scott Jacobson" <sjaco...@novell.com> To: "Mikhail Nikitin" <mikhail.niki...@gmail.com>, <VERITAS-BU@mailman.eng.auburn.edu> Date: 11/16/2014 01:48 PM Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Netbackup Appliance Vs Data Domain Sent by: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu You'll likely receive many responses to your inquire so I add mine as well. In my research with DD and Quantum is that they were all compatible pieces to create the solution your seeking, however, there are many moving parts in getting them to work and some features are missing (as mentioned, ie. OST) compared to the Symantec Appliances. The Symantec Appliances have many of the best of bread software products built in i.e. Storage Foundation/High Availability etc. Your environment sounds like an exact copy of ours. I currently have three 5230's deployed globally for the primary purpose of A.I.R., but also have one of them at our primary Data Center location whose additional function was to reduce backup windows and deduplicate data - all is working as promoted and designed. I've about a 72% deduplication rate with structured and unstructured data. Accelerator based backups are crazy fast after the first initial Full backup - two examples: 1. A 21 hour Full back up to LTO IV tape (dedicated backup network infrastructure) now takes only 50 minutes to the 5230 deduplication pool. 2. At an East Coast office a local backup of a 375 Gb Windows server with 1.8 million files would take around 9 to 10 hours. Again, with Accelerator enabled and the backup occurring over the WAN to our 5230 Appliance deduplication pool 2000 miles away, the backup only takes 1 hour 10 minutes. The rate from the NBU Console reports 89121 KB Per Second. (this may sound misleading, but you have to get your head around what the Accelerate and its Track Journal is doing which is comparing (no tree walk) de-duped block changes and sending only new blocks that don't reside on the target Appliance) Symantec just announced the 5330 which is of course faster than the 5230 and it can scale to 229 Tb so this maybe something you might want to look into. Note also that a 5230 can be either a Master or Media server (all of mine are Media Servers) and the 5330 can only be a Media server which is not a limiting factor in my opinion. I won't get into the discussion of whose better, NetBackup, EMC or Commvault because we are a Symantec NetBackup shop. I'll leave that response alone and to those who wish to share their experiences. Scott >>> Mikhail Nikitin <mikhail.niki...@gmail.com> 11/15/2014 3:16 PM >>> Couple of things to consider. NBU Appliance is a media server plus a dedupe pool so it can do offhost VMware backups over SAN whereas OST Appliances need a media server. Some additional features like VMware instant recovery are not yet available for OST partners. You can attach Data Domain to the back of NBU Appliances, it is supported. So you can have both and avoid having extra media servers for Data Domains. I would get both and maintain some balance. This should give you maximum discount from both Symantec and EMC. Best regards, Mikhail On 15/11/2014 3:46 am, "saiyed123" <nbu-fo...@backupcentral.com> wrote: Our company is considering NBU for backup solution using backup appliance, our environment is mainly VMWARE ( 800+ guest) 30 + ESX and 30+Solaris boxes. We also need Exchange backups to improve and keep the backup over the san when possible. We will need data replicated offsite also. Current proposal is Netbackup with 3 5230 appliances I like the integration of Netbackup with Appliance but need to know those who are currently using it thier experience with it. Upgrades/Vmware backup & Exchange/share point/sql etc, netbackup Air and accilirator products. Why do you think Netbackup is better vs EMC or Commvault. I understand there are some limitation with the Appliance in their size and capabilities as compared to DD, i.e NFS/VTL Would it be better to go with two netbackup appliance and one data domain appliance so we can leverage all capabilities, Symantec is saying NFS capabilities are coming next year and suggest we backup external NFS mount ( waists of space and time). So i need some opinion in this regard. We are medium size company. +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |This was sent by bomba...@hotmail.com via Backup Central. |Forward SPAM to ab...@backupcentral.com. +---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu _______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
_______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
