Thanks for the data, it is quite useful! What kind of storage medium are you using (i.e. DLT?, AIT?) and what is your backup hardware (i.e. what are the specs of the system you use to run the backup software on)?

This is the kind of info I can't even get the sales 'drioids to get for me...

On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Kelly Wyatt wrote:

I have not tested NFS mounted backups versus NDMP direct attach (we use these in a multiprotocol manner, and with NFS mounts you lose the CIFS acls), but I have done backups to remote NDMP storage units using NetBackup. I hope this data is useful.

Following is a note I sent to our management earlier this year.

This is using NetBackup. The data was collected from NetBackup and thrown through SAS to perform the calculations.

Kelly

---

I have been wondering what the affect of local (direct attach drive) versus remote (over the network) backups is on the NetApps. The following reports show that difference...

For both reports (Full backups first report, Incr backups second report), the LOCAL is the mean GB/hour for local backups and the REMOTE is the mean GB/hour for remote backups. Where there is no REMOTE it means that there have been no remote backups for that volume. The PERDIFF is the difference between the LOCAL and the REMOTE (REMOTE/LOCAL).

The anomalies (where remote is > ) probably means that the first big backup was an incremental backup, which, in reality, is equivalent to a full. Also, there are some volumes that always backup to remote filers... and this is indeed correct.

This is on 100ethernet. We are looking at setting up a private GB network for remote backups.

Full Backups 1

OBS CLASS LOCAL REMOTE PERDIFF

1 17.7295 8.1000 0.45687 2 b.vol0 24.9750 13.1800 0.52773 3 b.vol1 . 13.3340 . 4 h.vol0 . 12.7200 . 5 h.vol1 21.5450 12.6000 0.58482 6 h.vol2 0.5800 0.4725 0.81466 7 s.vol0 0.7200 1.8567 2.57870 8 s.vol1 15.8200 15.3133 0.96797 9 s.vol2 0.0400 0.0550 1.37500 10 s.vol3 . 0.0467 .  Incremental Backups 2

OBS CLASS LOCAL REMOTE PERDIFF

1 11.6673 7.2805 0.62401 2 b.vol0 20.6550 13.6800 0.66231 3 b.vol1 11.4783 4.2700 0.37201 4 e.vol0 15.4419 12.2767 0.79502 5 e.vol1 15.6693 11.7867 0.75221 6 h.vol0 13.5387 11.0275 0.81452 7 h.vol1 19.7640 11.5750 0.58566 8 h.vol2 0.1453 0.0300 0.20642 9 k.vol0 9.2976 7.4225 0.79832 10 k.vol1 9.6065 6.9500 0.72347 11 k.vol3 10.7789 10.5400 0.97784 12 o.vol0 15.2288 9.4967 0.62360 13 o.vol1 6.7781 4.2133 0.62161 14 o.vol2 10.7219 8.6333 0.80521 15 p.vol0 1.1365 0.0700 0.06159 16 p.vol1 13.5583 9.6750 0.71358 17 p.vol2 14.8133 12.4600 0.84113 18 p.vol3 14.1555 9.8500 0.69584 19 q.vol1 0.2250 0.3300 1.46667 20 r.vol4 11.1685 11.3500 1.01625 21 s.vol1 13.4850 8.9160 0.66118 22 s.vol2 3.3287 0.0333 0.01001 23 s.vol3 0.0336 0.0200 0.59459

--

Kelly Wyatt, Kelly.Wyatt@SAS.com Senior Systems Programmer Strategic Recovery SAS Institute Inc. / SAS Campus Drive / Cary, NC 27513 http://www.sas.com SAS... The Power to Know

-----Original Message----- From: Brian Hostetter [mailto:BrianH@dice.com] Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 12:47 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Ndmp vs. Nfs backups.

Has anyone tested the speeds of ndmp backups vs nfs? I am looking at three different backup packages, and all have fuctions that will not work with ndmp (archiving, tape duplication, cataloging). I am wondering if nfs is any where near the backup speed of ndmp. If it is close then the benefits may outweigh the speed loss. Right now I am getting about ~8M/s per drive with ndmp which is really nice.

----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO