Subscribe to Windows IT Pro
May 09, 2000 11:58 AM

Enterprise Backup Software

Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #8725
Rating: (2)

I easily installed Tivoli Data Protection for Exchange Server at the Exchange server's console. To improve the Exchange client's performance, I followed the product documentation's instructions to change settings in a client options file. In a production environment, Exchange Server setup is more complicated; you need to configure specific policy requirements and parameters that define how the system handles backed-up Exchange data.

NetWare client installations were straightforward. I copied the Tivoli NLMs to the NetWare sys: directory from the Storage Manager client CD-ROM, loaded the necessary NetWare NLMs to enable NetWare's Storage Management Services, then loaded Tivoli's client NLM (i.e., dsmc.nlm). To enable scheduled client backups from the Storage Manager server, I loaded a client scheduler.

The UNIX client's installation simply required me to run an install script from the UNIX client CD-ROM. The UNIX client includes a client options file (i.e., dsm.opt) for configuring operating parameters. To enhance the UNIX client's performance, I worked with Tivoli technical support to change some parameters. Automatically starting the scheduler process required adding a command to the /etc/inittab file.

During testing, I was unsure which Storage Manager interface to use for certain tasks. The Server Utilities GUI, which resembles a Microsoft Management Console (MMC) snap-in, is a group of wizards that help with Storage Manager Server's setup and configuration. The GUI provides a command-line interface and access to a library of commands that are the power behind the various GUIs and wizards.

Another interface option I explored was the Web administrative client, which impressed me with its functionality and flexibility. When you install Storage Manager, a lightweight HTTP service allows access to the Storage Manager server with a Java 1.1.6-capable browser (e.g., Microsoft Internet Explorer—IE—4.01, Netscape Navigator 4.06 and later) that points to TCP port 1581. Screen 5 shows the Web administrative client interface. The Web administrative client lets you control the Storage Manager server from any PC on your network (including remote dial-up PCs) without installing a special administrative client. Storage Manager on the server controls security.

During the test, Tivoli technical support helped me set performance-tuning parameters and eliminate a crippling timeout problem that arose while I backed up the large data set from the Storage Manager server. Storage Manager uses a diskpool to temporarily store backup data before committing it to tape. The diskpool's size and location have a direct effect on performance. I worked with Tivoli's technical support to create a 9GB diskpool and store it on a relatively inactive RAID 5 volume.

Nevertheless, Storage Manager's performance disappointed me. The product's CPU utilization was on the high side (36 percent during backup and 11 percent during restore), but that utilization didn't translate into fast backups and restores. Tivoli engineers said Storage Manager uses a unique backup database design that performs an initial full backup followed by incremental backups. This "incrementals forever" approach supposedly reduces backup times by eliminating backups of redundant data. Although this strategy eliminates time-consuming full backups, Storage Manager's below-average performance results in incremental backups that are still slower than backups for the other products I tested.

Although Storage Manager has a scalable architecture, it doesn't support important features such as multihosting (i.e., the ability to share a tape library with multiple backup servers). Storage Manager's price is competitive. If Tivoli's base list of supported devices had included the Scalar 1000, the cost of licensing my environment for Storage Manager would have rivaled ARCserveIT's low price. Storage Manager ran backups and restores reliably, but its poor performance overshadowed stronger features such as the Web administrative client and the wide range of supported host platforms.

Storage Manager 3.7.1
Contact: Tivoli Systems * 800-284-8654
Web: http://www.tivoli.com
Price: Contact vendor for pricing
Decision Summary
Pros: Excellent Web administrative client; favorable pricing, especially if your tape library is on the product's list of supported devices; wide support of host platforms, including AS/400 and mainframes
Cons: High CPU utilization; poor backup-and-restore performance; complicated setup; no client deployment tools

Related Content:

ARTICLE TOOLS

Comments
  • Anonymous User
    7 years ago
    Sep 08, 2005

    DISK CLEAN-UP
    Windows 98: Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk Clean-up
    OR My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, General, Disk Clean-up
    Windows XP: Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk Clean-up OR
    My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, Tools, Disk Clean-up
    SCANDISK
    Windows 98: Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, ScanDisk OR My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, Tools,
    Error-Checking Status
    Windows XP: My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, Tools, Error-Checking
    STANDARD: Checks for file system errors
    THOROUGH: Also checks for bad sectors (damaged areas on disk)
    DEFRAGMENTING
    Windows 98: Start, Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Disk Defragmenter OR My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Proper
    ties, Tools, Defragmentation Status
    Windows XP: My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter, Properties, Tools, Disk Defragmenter OR My Computer, Right-Click on drive letter,
    Properties, Tools, Defragmentation

    File Recovery Software
    Recupero di Dati
    Datenrettungs Software

  • Anonymous User
    8 years ago
    Nov 22, 2004

    Forgive the long and possibly wandering comments.

    Syncsort was our 'one and only' software for backing up our systems, since about 1999.
    The product worked as advertised, and allowed us to backup our Unix and Windows clients from one system.
    Then, about 1-2 years ago, the problems started.
    We received an upgrade, and gladly installed it, only to find out that during the upgrade our 'catalog' was destroyed. Apparantly the process consumed all disk space (Needed to have 110% of existing catalog size free to install, and we did not, but no warning was given), and failed to convert the catalog correctly. We also didn't find this out, until after the next catalog save completed, which erased the last catalog save. Although we should have had more than 1 tape for the 'catalog', we assumed that the catalog was also being backed up with the normal saves. We were informed from tech support, that the 'data' directory is automatically exlcuded from the normal system backups, even if you explicitly select it.
    So, we were forced to 'start over', with no way to reload the catalogs from the old tapes, as most other systems are able to do.
    Recently having upgraded to AIX 5.3, we decided to upgrade to BackEx latest 2.2 version, with the web interface.
    The upgrade went smooth with no signs of problems.
    We succesfully restored a few files, and were happy, until we attempted to do a backup.
    The system reported hardware problems on the 'SCSI' interface.
    Syncsort support blamed the hardware. We disagreed, since all was working until that upgrade, but gladly contacted IBM and exabyte.
    IBM replaced the SCSI cards, and the cables. Exabyte tested the drives, and found no problems. Syncsort still insisted there was a hardware problem.
    We purchased another SCSI card, and installed the library onto that controller, but BackEx still reported hardware problems, on every SCSI interface that had a tape drive attached (3 scsi cards now). It was apparant to us, that the problem was related to syncsort, and possibly it running on AIX 5.3
    IBM's tools reported no errors, and was able to backup to every tape drive in the system
    An engineer from Syncsort attempted a few fixes, they even sent a tech on site, who simply reviwed the cabling and installation...
    Well, after 30+ days, we still do not have a backup, and have decided to switch to another vendor, and funny enough, there are no SCSI bus errors, and we're using the same hardware / drivers as was used with syncsort's backup express.


    Goodbye Syncsort.

  • Todd Edwards
    10 years ago
    Oct 30, 2002

    Our company is in the process of reviewing enterprise backup software. I read Tom Iwanski's "Enterprise Backup Software" (June 2000, InstantDoc ID 8725) and wondered whether the author has done any recent reviews.

  • Tom Iwanski
    10 years ago
    Oct 30, 2002

    For a more recent look at backup products, see Ed Roth's "Enterprise Backup Solutions" (October 2001, InstantDoc ID 22239). I suggest that you thoroughly test any products in your own environment, if possible. Some vendors provide a timed trial version of their software that's viable for comparative testing. Defining what features are most important for your environment and which product addresses them the best is crucial. For example, performance might be critical for your organization because you have a narrow backup window. Ease of use is also important, especially if you'll have moderately skilled technicians performing backups and restores. The list is unique to each environment.

  • Brandon McFeron
    10 years ago
    Mar 18, 2002

    I read this article, and being a TSM administrator, I was suprised to see Netbackup held in such high regard. After reading the article I came across the following post on www.adsm.org (a TSM support website) and thought it to be VERY Pertinent to the information presented here:

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Seay, Paul [mailto:seay_pd@NAPTHEON.COM]
    Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 12:28 AM
    To:
    Subject: Re: VM TSM migration options: Veritas vs Netbackup


    There has been a lot of recent discussion on the list about the subject area
    of Veritas on Intel versus TSM. The comments here are for everyone, not the
    author of the question, nothing is personally meant by any comments here.
    Bottomline, NetBackup doesn't scale at all. We are ripping it out of the
    Windows environment right now. We worked for 18 months with Veritas
    Engineering to try to fix the product. They simply gave up. The word
    "compete" should not even be put in the same sentence when speaking of
    Netbackup vs TSM on Intel. If you have less than 20 clients to backup and
    none with over 50GB of data, Netbackup will be OK. That is if you never
    need to create duplicate offsite copies or need a deleted file policy.
    Duplication on Windows is an impossibility in the Netbackup world unless you
    buy 4 times the hardware you have in comparison to TSM and a 24 to 72 hour
    window to create those duplicates. Deleted file policy, Netbackup, asks
    what is a policy? No such animal, so you get stuck when you do not catch
    that a file has been deleted before your tapes expire in Netbackup. The key
    word here is tape expiration, not backup object expiration. NetBackup has
    no such thing as storage management. I refer to it as NetBackup,
    GrossNoRestore. In other words, NetBackup backs up some of your stuff, but
    you will never be able to restore it all.

    Yeah, UNIX is next. After the debacles of implementing 3.4 of Netbackup,
    Veritas really dug the grave deep. Oh, I forgot to mention that our Windows
    Netbackup 3.4 migration lead to a down (backups lost) situation for weeks
    and we ended up figuring out what the problems were.

    Because we lost half the performance from 3.2 to 3.4 on Windows, we were
    faced with needing to change. More or better hardware would not fix the
    problem, hell, we are using ESS disk and Magstar FC tape with high-end
    servers. Before the migration we were getting 4.5MB/sec and up to 10 in
    certain situations. Veritas could not figure out how we were getting these
    levels of performance. They could not reproduce them with our own server
    and identical hardware in their labs. Simply, Netbackup cannot scale in the
    Windows environment.

    I consider myself an expert on Netbackup and a knowledgeable person on TSM.
    I believed the Netbackup hype, thought the product was the best because it
    had the features that I thought were needed. When actually, implementing
    you find out the features differences with TSM are gimmicks to get you to
    buy and really never scale making them unusable. These gimmicks cause you
    to overlook the real issue of being able to restore your business, which
    implies having control and the ability to direct what is backed up.
    Netbackup's GUI is impressive, it is the registry hackers dream. Wait till
    all the timeout crap hits the fan and you start tweaking registry entries,
    creating undocumented touch files and finding out there is poor to
    non-existent Windows support at Veritas for Netbackup when you have a
    critical problems. When you are paying 23% maintenance from a large account
    you would think that having half a dozen critical down situation open calls
    would get someone from Development engaged to work with your account. We
    finally surmised these people did not exist anymore.

    Yes, TSM has its quirks and customers have lost data over the years, but
    probably mostly of their own doing and not really learning the TSM product.
    After 911, everyone should be taking backup and recovery at a different
    seriousness. If not, you are in the wrong business. That means if you are
    not an expert in the backup product you are using and doing regular disaster
    recovery tests, then shame on you, get to be an expert. If you are not
    capable, choose a vendor that has support, Tivoli is one of them. The shame
    if it is we automatically set the support expectation bar 2 notches higher
    when it is an IBM company, but we will pay more to a fly-by-night
    organization and make excuses for them when they do not answer the phone.

    This all said make your NetBackup/TSM decision on facts, not likes or
    dislikes. Your business depends on you getting this right and ultimately
    your job and reputation.

    Consider one final note. Your understanding of TSM is an irreplaceable
    asset. You could spend 50K training people alone on Netbackup and still not
    be able to support the product. The cost of TSM is much less than Netbackup
    in the long term. See if you can work a deal with IBM to convert your
    drives to FC or SCSI for a nominal fee. The "staying with TSM" carrot may
    be all that is needed to push the button hard enough to get someone's
    attention. ESCON is relatively slow compared to SCSI and fibre channel.
    FICON is a different story. If you have MVS, that is ultimately the
    cheapest answer to your problem.

You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

advertisement

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.