Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup?
Considering these, looking for experiences,
br, sk
"Sami" == Sami Kapanen sami.kapanen@hamk.fi writes:
Sami> Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup? Sami> Considering these, looking for experiences,
In my experience with backups, no one cares. It's only about restores. And being able to quickly and easily search through backups for the file(s) to restore. So test that side of things first.
In personal experience, Networker (EMC, was Legato) was awesome for doing restores, the file indexes stayed online and made searching trivial.
CommVault... sucks for this. The indexes get purged so damn fast that you're always pulling back tapes just for the indexes, etc. Painful.
So test this part of your backup scheme first, or find the user forums for Cohesity/Rubrik and ask that question there. And of course try to ask people who have the same size environment as you want to backup as well.
Cheers, John
On 2020-10-27 19:28, John Stoffel wrote:
Sami> Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup? Sami> Considering these, looking for experiences,
In my experience with backups, no one cares. It's only about restores. And being able to quickly and easily search through backups for the file(s) to restore. So test that side of things first.
Exactly. Since years, I always write this "Restore/Backup". *Not* Backup/Restore. That's not to say that RPO (aka ADL, Acceptable Data Loss) is unimportant. But the end users, the data owners, do not care one bit about *how* that works. And until the need a restore, they couldn't care less so you can do whatever you want including not taking the backups except THAT ONE some user wants a restore from ;-)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The backup taking problem w Rubrik is that it's host based. SMB ("NAS") based backups taken by a Rubrik server, will traverse the file tress, scan them over and over and over again and then pull the data out (night time perhaps...) via the front end traffic intrefaces the same as where your user workload is all the time. In a Hi File Count environment (HFC) with billions of files and lots of "churn" (WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL,...) this is not going to work well for you. The backups will just never finish; the backup window problem revisited. Back to the 1990's.
So with ONTAP gear you have the SnapDiff API. And then it can work quite well. No problem -- should be OK even in a HFC environment
John Stoffel wrote:
In personal experience, Networker (EMC, was Legato) was awesome for doing restores, the file indexes stayed online and made searching trivial.
I concur. Like John says: was Legato. It was good in this respect. I have no historical hands on experience w CommVault but what I know about it in theory has made me/us stay away from it. Every assessment, w a few years in between has made me go "... no."
My options expressed here of course.
If you follow Johns good advice here, not that much can go wrong for you IMHO.
/M
John Stoffel wrote:
CommVault... sucks for this. The indexes get purged so damn fast that you're always pulling back tapes just for the indexes, etc. Painful.
So test this part of your backup scheme first, or find the user forums for Cohesity/Rubrik and ask that question there. And of course try to ask people who have the same size environment as you want to backup as well.
Cheers, John
RE: SnapDiff API, be sure to ask each vendor about that. It's important, because it shows where the tighter integration is.
You're likely to get very different answers about their roadmaps.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Bergman michael.bergman@ericsson.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 2:54 PM To: Toasters@teaparty.net Subject: Re: Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup?
On 2020-10-27 19:28, John Stoffel wrote:
Sami> Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup? Sami> Considering these, looking for experiences,
In my experience with backups, no one cares. It's only about restores. And being able to quickly and easily search through backups for the file(s) to restore. So test that side of things first.
Exactly. Since years, I always write this "Restore/Backup". *Not* Backup/Restore. That's not to say that RPO (aka ADL, Acceptable Data Loss) is unimportant. But the end users, the data owners, do not care one bit about *how* that works. And until the need a restore, they couldn't care less so you can do whatever you want including not taking the backups except THAT ONE some user wants a restore from ;-)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The backup taking problem w Rubrik is that it's host based. SMB ("NAS") based backups taken by a Rubrik server, will traverse the file tress, scan them over and over and over again and then pull the data out (night time perhaps...) via the front end traffic intrefaces the same as where your user workload is all the time. In a Hi File Count environment (HFC) with billions of files and lots of "churn" (WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL,...) this is not going to work well for you. The backups will just never finish; the backup window problem revisited. Back to the 1990's.
So with ONTAP gear you have the SnapDiff API. And then it can work quite well. No problem -- should be OK even in a HFC environment
John Stoffel wrote:
In personal experience, Networker (EMC, was Legato) was awesome for doing restores, the file indexes stayed online and made searching trivial.
I concur. Like John says: was Legato. It was good in this respect. I have no historical hands on experience w CommVault but what I know about it in theory has made me/us stay away from it. Every assessment, w a few years in between has made me go "... no."
My options expressed here of course.
If you follow Johns good advice here, not that much can go wrong for you IMHO.
/M
John Stoffel wrote:
CommVault... sucks for this. The indexes get purged so damn fast that you're always pulling back tapes just for the indexes, etc. Painful.
So test this part of your backup scheme first, or find the user forums for Cohesity/Rubrik and ask that question there. And of course try to ask people who have the same size environment as you want to backup as well.
Cheers, John
On 2020-10-27 20:03, Justin Parisi wrote:
RE: SnapDiff API, be sure to ask each vendor about that. It's important, because it shows where the tighter integration is.
You're likely to get very different answers about their roadmaps.
Good advice, I agree -- very important. Oh, and I meant
"My opinions expressed here of course." (not options... *duh*)
/M
I will check these,
Rubrik states it is using SnapDiff. Cohesity says it is based on NAS snapshots as well.
Restore times are important, but not crucial to us (University), we don't loose millions per day if/when restoring.
sk
-----Original Message----- From: Toasters toasters-bounces@teaparty.net On Behalf Of Parisi, Justin Sent: tiistai 27. lokakuuta 2020 21:04 To: NGC-michael.bergman-ericsson.com michael.bergman@ericsson.com; Toasters@teaparty.net Subject: RE: Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup?
RE: SnapDiff API, be sure to ask each vendor about that. It's important, because it shows where the tighter integration is.
You're likely to get very different answers about their roadmaps.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Bergman michael.bergman@ericsson.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 2:54 PM To: Toasters@teaparty.net Subject: Re: Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup?
On 2020-10-27 19:28, John Stoffel wrote:
Sami> Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup? Sami> Considering these, looking for experiences,
In my experience with backups, no one cares. It's only about restores. And being able to quickly and easily search through backups for the file(s) to restore. So test that side of things first.
Exactly. Since years, I always write this "Restore/Backup". *Not* Backup/Restore. That's not to say that RPO (aka ADL, Acceptable Data Loss) is unimportant. But the end users, the data owners, do not care one bit about *how* that works. And until the need a restore, they couldn't care less so you can do whatever you want including not taking the backups except THAT ONE some user wants a restore from ;-)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The backup taking problem w Rubrik is that it's host based. SMB ("NAS") based backups taken by a Rubrik server, will traverse the file tress, scan them over and over and over again and then pull the data out (night time perhaps...) via the front end traffic intrefaces the same as where your user workload is all the time. In a Hi File Count environment (HFC) with billions of files and lots of "churn" (WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL,...) this is not going to work well for you. The backups will just never finish; the backup window problem revisited. Back to the 1990's.
So with ONTAP gear you have the SnapDiff API. And then it can work quite well. No problem -- should be OK even in a HFC environment
John Stoffel wrote:
In personal experience, Networker (EMC, was Legato) was awesome for doing restores, the file indexes stayed online and made searching trivial.
I concur. Like John says: was Legato. It was good in this respect. I have no historical hands on experience w CommVault but what I know about it in theory has made me/us stay away from it. Every assessment, w a few years in between has made me go "... no."
My options expressed here of course.
If you follow Johns good advice here, not that much can go wrong for you IMHO.
/M
John Stoffel wrote:
CommVault... sucks for this. The indexes get purged so damn fast that you're always pulling back tapes just for the indexes, etc. Painful.
So test this part of your backup scheme first, or find the user forums for Cohesity/Rubrik and ask that question there. And of course try to ask people who have the same size environment as you want to backup as well.
Cheers, John
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Veeam is adding SnapDiff in v11 for NAS backup too, it's all about the restore capabilities and Veeam is fully focused on all the (granular) recovery options.
Op wo 28 okt. 2020 om 07:33 schreef Sami Kapanen sami.kapanen@hamk.fi:
I will check these,
Rubrik states it is using SnapDiff. Cohesity says it is based on NAS snapshots as well.
Restore times are important, but not crucial to us (University), we don't loose millions per day if/when restoring.
sk
-----Original Message----- From: Toasters toasters-bounces@teaparty.net On Behalf Of Parisi,
Justin
Sent: tiistai 27. lokakuuta 2020 21:04 To: NGC-michael.bergman-ericsson.com michael.bergman@ericsson.com; Toasters@teaparty.net Subject: RE: Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup?
RE: SnapDiff API, be sure to ask each vendor about that. It's important,
because
it shows where the tighter integration is.
You're likely to get very different answers about their roadmaps.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Bergman michael.bergman@ericsson.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 2:54 PM To: Toasters@teaparty.net Subject: Re: Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup?
On 2020-10-27 19:28, John Stoffel wrote:
Sami> Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup? Sami> Considering these, looking for experiences,
In my experience with backups, no one cares. It's only about restores. And being able to quickly and easily search through backups for the file(s) to restore. So test that side of things first.
Exactly. Since years, I always write this "Restore/Backup". *Not* Backup/Restore. That's not to say that RPO (aka ADL, Acceptable Data Loss) is
unimportant.
But the end users, the data owners, do not care one bit about *how* that works. And until the need a restore, they couldn't care less so you can
do
whatever you want including not taking the backups except THAT ONE some user wants a restore from ;-)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The backup taking problem w Rubrik is that it's host based. SMB ("NAS")
based
backups taken by a Rubrik server, will traverse the file tress, scan
them over and
over and over again and then pull the data out (night time perhaps...) via the front end traffic intrefaces the same as where your
user
workload is all the time. In a Hi File Count environment (HFC) with billions of files and lots of
"churn"
(WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL,...) this is not going to work well for
you.
The backups will just never finish; the backup window problem revisited.
Back to
the 1990's.
So with ONTAP gear you have the SnapDiff API. And then it can work quite
well.
No problem -- should be OK even in a HFC environment
John Stoffel wrote:
In personal experience, Networker (EMC, was Legato) was awesome for doing restores, the file indexes stayed online and made searching trivial.
I concur. Like John says: was Legato. It was good in this respect. I have no historical hands on experience w CommVault but what I know
about it
in theory has made me/us stay away from it. Every assessment, w a few
years in
between has made me go "... no."
My options expressed here of course.
If you follow Johns good advice here, not that much can go wrong for you IMHO.
/M
John Stoffel wrote:
CommVault... sucks for this. The indexes get purged so damn fast that you're always pulling back tapes just for the indexes, etc. Painful.
So test this part of your backup scheme first, or find the user forums for Cohesity/Rubrik and ask that question there. And of course try to ask people who have the same size environment as you want to backup as well.
Cheers, John
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
A customer of mine was exploring both Rubrick and Cohesity to backup *only* VMware.
They said they went with Rubrick after Rubrick explained that they use SnapDiff and Cohesity does not.
I informed them, they were essentially lied to. Sure Rubrick does use SnapDiff but only for NAS backups and not for VMware. VMware backups go through vCenter and are directed to the ESXi hosts themselves. No direct NetApp involvement.
Yeah...they were not too happy about that one. They probably would have gone a different route knowing the truth.
Unfortunately, they did not challenge any FUD either way.
--tmac
*Tim McCarthy, **Principal Consultant*
*Proud Member of the #NetAppATeam https://twitter.com/NetAppATeam*
*I Blog at TMACsRack https://tmacsrack.wordpress.com/*
[image: Cisco and NetApp FlexPod Design Specialist] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/58cf082d-acd8-4529-821a-bb7eb93a296c/public_url[image: NetApp Certified Implementation Engineer - SAN Specialist, ONTAP] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/162b629e-b4f1-48af-a8f9-d2a9517ec100/public_url[image: NetApp Certified Data Administrator, ONTAP] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/b41a5941-6885-4181-b984-21df36bc27a8/public_url[image: NetApp Certified Storage Installation Engineer, ONTAP] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/367c462d-d58b-4cbf-9e8d-a5068b247cd6/public_url[image: NetApp Certified Support Engineer] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/053a4154-47c0-41e8-899f-b2dc81b228a3/public_url[image: NetApp Accredited Hardware Support Engineer] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/02a6dbc2-e7f4-4779-846c-3d0eabd48798/public_url[image: NetApp Accredited MetroCluster IP Implementation Engineer] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/24bde044-b196-4b33-8fe7-603e533f2551/public_url [image: Cisco and NetApp FlexPod Implementation and Administration Specialist] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/53a73b2a-ca83-43b8-895e-3299735dd406/public_url[image: NetApp Certified Implementation Engineer - Data Protection Specialist] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/51e81930-cad0-4e1f-b54d-dde7f181516c/public_url[image: NetApp Certified Technology Associate] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/bb26a4bf-2449-4998-a374-74235bc6dec3/public_url[image: Subject Matter Expert] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/fc9747ad-648b-4472-8557-72e70e2879c4/public_url[image: NetApp Certified Support Engineer - ONTAP Specialist] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/c0815721-1751-4cc3-9bae-01d2778a5358/public_url[image: NetApp Accredited StorageGRID Implementation Engineer] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/9613df3b-99b8-41ce-a62f-3a7443316b4e/public_url[image: NetApp Accredited MetroCluster Installation Engineer] https://www.youracclaim.com/badges/52ebdd24-6c9b-40a5-ba75-a60508b5f28b/public_url
On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 5:11 AM Jan van Leuken janvanleuken@gmail.com wrote:
Veeam is adding SnapDiff in v11 for NAS backup too, it's all about the restore capabilities and Veeam is fully focused on all the (granular) recovery options.
Op wo 28 okt. 2020 om 07:33 schreef Sami Kapanen sami.kapanen@hamk.fi:
I will check these,
Rubrik states it is using SnapDiff. Cohesity says it is based on NAS snapshots as well.
Restore times are important, but not crucial to us (University), we don't loose millions per day if/when restoring.
sk
-----Original Message----- From: Toasters toasters-bounces@teaparty.net On Behalf Of Parisi,
Justin
Sent: tiistai 27. lokakuuta 2020 21:04 To: NGC-michael.bergman-ericsson.com michael.bergman@ericsson.com; Toasters@teaparty.net Subject: RE: Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup?
RE: SnapDiff API, be sure to ask each vendor about that. It's
important, because
it shows where the tighter integration is.
You're likely to get very different answers about their roadmaps.
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Bergman michael.bergman@ericsson.com Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 2:54 PM To: Toasters@teaparty.net Subject: Re: Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup?
On 2020-10-27 19:28, John Stoffel wrote:
Sami> Anyone using Cohesity or Rubrik for Netapp CIFS NAS backup? Sami> Considering these, looking for experiences,
In my experience with backups, no one cares. It's only about restores. And being able to quickly and easily search through backups for the file(s) to restore. So test that side of things first.
Exactly. Since years, I always write this "Restore/Backup". *Not* Backup/Restore. That's not to say that RPO (aka ADL, Acceptable Data Loss) is
unimportant.
But the end users, the data owners, do not care one bit about *how* that works. And until the need a restore, they couldn't care less so you can
do
whatever you want including not taking the backups except THAT ONE some user wants a restore from ;-)
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
The backup taking problem w Rubrik is that it's host based. SMB ("NAS")
based
backups taken by a Rubrik server, will traverse the file tress, scan
them over and
over and over again and then pull the data out (night time perhaps...) via the front end traffic intrefaces the same as where your
user
workload is all the time. In a Hi File Count environment (HFC) with billions of files and lots of
"churn"
(WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL-WRITE-DEL,...) this is not going to work well for
you.
The backups will just never finish; the backup window problem
revisited. Back to
the 1990's.
So with ONTAP gear you have the SnapDiff API. And then it can work
quite well.
No problem -- should be OK even in a HFC environment
John Stoffel wrote:
In personal experience, Networker (EMC, was Legato) was awesome for doing restores, the file indexes stayed online and made searching trivial.
I concur. Like John says: was Legato. It was good in this respect. I have no historical hands on experience w CommVault but what I know
about it
in theory has made me/us stay away from it. Every assessment, w a few
years in
between has made me go "... no."
My options expressed here of course.
If you follow Johns good advice here, not that much can go wrong for you IMHO.
/M
John Stoffel wrote:
CommVault... sucks for this. The indexes get purged so damn fast that you're always pulling back tapes just for the indexes, etc. Painful.
So test this part of your backup scheme first, or find the user forums for Cohesity/Rubrik and ask that question there. And of course try to ask people who have the same size environment as you want to backup as well.
Cheers, John
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
Toasters mailing list Toasters@teaparty.net https://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters
On 2020-10-28 10:07, Jan van Leuken wrote:
Veeam is adding SnapDiff in v11 for NAS backup too, it's all about the restore capabilities and Veeam is fully focused on all the (granular) recovery options.
My personal opinion of Rubrik vs Veeam products is that I'd choose Veeam. They are both accomplished products, that do what they do quite well. That choice is for some reasons which apply to me/us here. Operational factors which has little to do with NetApp equipment or ONTAP per se
Also, we don't interface (yet) at all to any external Hyperscale Cloud. We may in the future, and in that case S3 Buckets in AWS
Cohesity is not a contender (for me/us) compared to the two above.
Just my 0.05 SEK worth.
/M
Op wo 28 okt. 2020 om 07:33 schreef Sami Kapanen:
I will check these,
Rubrik states it is using SnapDiff. Cohesity says it is based on NAS snapshots as well.
Restore times are important, but not crucial to us (University), we don't loose millions per day if/when restoring.
sk
"Sami" == Sami Kapanen sami.kapanen@hamk.fi writes:
Sami> I will check these,
Sami> Rubrik states it is using SnapDiff. Cohesity says it is based on Sami> NAS snapshots as well.
Be careful and look at the details of how those snapshots are used. When doing NDMP backups, yes, the backup is based on a snapshot of the volume. And if you have lots of files, then the restores will be *painful* if you only need one or two files in a 10 million file volume. NDMP isn't really quick on that type of restore in my experience.
Sami> Restore times are important, but not crucial to us (University), Sami> we don't loose millions per day if/when restoring.
So if you keep your students and faculty and staff completely segregated in terms of the volumes they keep their data and home dirs on, then you can provide different levels of backup guarantees. Faculty/Staff get better ones of course.
So if you use snapshots as a way to let users recover files from *oops* moments where they deleted a file an hour ago or so and want it back, then you might run into the issue of someone duming a large new files, or deleting alot of data which all goes into the snapshots, and you run out of disk space... then you have a tough call to make.
Do you delete snapshots to make room? Do you grow the volume?
Same with backups to a degree, if you have a full backup that has been running for a day or two, and you run out of space, do you kill the backup?
The worse case scenario is the tough one. It's been 20+ years since I worked in a Uni, and disk space was always a problem even then, since some users would try to game the system.
John
-
Jan van Leuken -
John Stoffel -
Michael Bergman -
Parisi, Justin -
Sami Kapanen -
tmac