Veritas NetBackup 7.6 benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3)
2 likes634 views
This document is a test report comparing the Veritas NetBackup software to a competitor's solution in large-scale virtual machine environments. It details hands-on testing results that demonstrate Veritas NetBackup's superior performance in backup time and recovery capabilities, achieving 67.3% faster backups and maintaining application consistency at higher VM counts compared to the competitor. The findings indicate that Veritas NetBackup is more scalable and efficient for enterprise data protection in increasingly large virtualized environments.
Veritas NetBackup 7.6 benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3)
- 1. JULY 2015 (Revised) A PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES TEST REPORT (Third of a three-part series) Commissioned by Veritas Corp. VERITAS NETBACKUP BENCHMARK COMPARISON: DATA PROTECTION IN A LARGE-SCALE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT (PART 3) Virtualization1 technology is changing the way data centers work. Technologies such as VMware® vSphere® shrink the physical footprint of computing hardware by increasing the number of virtual servers. Within the enterprise, large-scale deployments of thousands of virtual machines are now common. To protect the data on these virtual systems, enterprises employ a variety of backup methods including hardware snapshots, hypervisor-level backup (vStorage APIs for Data Protection (VADP) in the case of VMware technology), and traditional agent-in-guest methods. Enterprises that utilize both block Storage Area Network (SAN) systems and file-based Network-Attached Storage (NAS) may scale more effectively, but backup and recovery systems must fully leverage the strengths of each platform to provide efficient service with minimal impact to the production environment. In our hands-on testing at Principled Technologies, we wanted to see how leading enterprise backup and recovery solutions handled large-scale virtual machine 1 In July 2014, Symantec commissioned Principled Technologies to perform Part 1 and Part 2 of this series. In January 2015, Symantec selected Veritas Technologies Corporation as the name for its independent information management company and changed the name of the product from Symantec NetBackup to Veritas NetBackup.
- 2. A Principled Technologies test report 2Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) (VM) deployments based on vSphere. We tested a solution using industry-leading Veritas NetBackup software and the Veritas NetBackup Integrated Appliance, with NetApp FAS3200-series arrays to host the VMs, and a comparable solution from another leading competitor (Competitor “V”). We tested two types of scenarios: one that utilized SAN storage and one that utilized NAS storage. In both scenarios, we tested with increasing populations of VMs—as low as 100 and as high as 1,000–to see how each solution scaled as the environment grew. We found the Veritas NetBackup converged platform consisting of the NetBackup Integrated Appliance and NetBackup 7.6 software, featuring capabilities such as Accelerator, Replication Director, and Instant Recovery—all for VMware vSphere— provided a more scalable platform than the Competitor “V” platform. With 1,000 VMs, NetBackup completed the SAN transport backup in a Fibre Channel SAN environment in 67.3 percent less time than the Competitor “V” solution did. In the NAS scenario with 1,000 VMs, Replication Director created recovery points via NetApp array-based snapshots in 54.1 percent less time than the Competitor “V” solution did. Competitor “V” failed to perform application consistent backups when the environment grew to nearly 300 VMs. It also failed to prove recovery at scale when pushed to recover 24 VMs concurrently. In our tests, Veritas NetBackup with the NetBackup Integrated Appliance provided superior scalability and performance needed to protect the largest virtual server deployments, when compared to the Competitor “V” solution. WHAT WE COMPARED Backup via VMware vStorage APIs for data protection Using the NetBackup Integrated Appliance as both media server and backup storage, we tested how long it took to execute a backup with virtual application protection. Using the breakdown illustrated in Figure 5, we performed full backups with application protection on groups of VMs from 100 to 1,000, measuring the backup time elapsed. Backup via storage-array snapshots We rebuilt our storage network and datastores as NFS and used NetBackup Replication Director to create crash-consistent backups of NAS-based NFS storage at 100-, 200-, 500-, and 1,000-VM counts and an application-consistent backup at 1,000 VMs. We then performed the same tests on Competitor “V.” (Note: Because Competitor “V” failed to perform application-consistent backups at 1,000 VMs, we had to scale down the environment for further investigation. Please see the details on page 11.) We captured metrics on backup speed and hardware performance to determine if there was any performance degradation in the environment. We also recorded the administrative time required for each test.
- 3. A Principled Technologies test report 3Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) OUR ENVIRONMENT We set up the test environment using 20 Dell™ PowerEdge™ M420 server blades running VMware vSphere ESXi 5.5. Figure 1 shows how we configured our data network. We used this configuration universally on SAN and NAS testing. Figure 2 shows our storage network for vStorage APIs-based backup testing, and Figure 3 shows our storage network for storage-array snapshot-based backup testing. Figure 1: Detailed test bed layout: data network.
- 4. A Principled Technologies test report 4Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Figure 2: Detailed storage network: vStorage APIs-based backups. Figure 3: Detailed storage network: Storage-array snapshot-based backups.
- 5. A Principled Technologies test report 5Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) We created a test environment of 1,000 Microsoft® Windows Server®-based VMs in several different configurations, depending on the test. We used Windows Server 2012 for application VMs, and Windows Server 2008 R2 Core installation for the standalone Web and idle file server VMs. To balance the load across the ESXi hosts and storage, we created a matrix to ensure that equal load was distributed across all four NetApp filers (four volumes for the NAS testing, 40 LUNs/datastores for SAN testing) and the 20 ESXi hosts. This prevented overutilization of individual system components while others were idle, optimizing the performance of the multi-threaded backup procedures. For SAN testing, we used Veritas NetBackup’s resources limits capability to eliminate the possibility of resource contention. When we completed our NetBackup testing, we removed the NetBackup appliance, added Competitor “V” on similarly configured hardware, and retested. For Competitor “V,” we performed iterative testing to determine the most effective number of streams to use in our environment, arriving at eight simultaneous streams. For this first scenario, on SAN transport, we created 200 Windows Server 2012 application VMs running Microsoft SQL Server®, Microsoft Exchange, or Microsoft SharePoint® (10 tiles of 20 VMs each), and up to 800 idle Windows Server 2012 VMs. Figure 4 represents the grouping of VMs included in each backup job. Figure 4: Backup via vStorage APIs based transport VM grouping.
- 6. A Principled Technologies test report 6Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Figure 5 provides the details for the sub-categories of VMs we used in this phase of testing. Server VM type Disk size (in GB) VM count 100 200 400 1,000 Active Directory® server 55 5 10 10 10 Exchange Server 50 25 50 50 50 SharePoint Web server 55 15 30 30 30 SharePoint SQL server 160 5 10 10 10 Web application SQL server 50 50 100 100 100 Idle Web server 22 200 800 Figure 5: Production VMs on SAN storage. Color-coding corresponds with Figure 4. For the NAS test phase, we created crash-consistent backups of NAS-based NFS storage at 100-, 200-, 500-, and 1,000-VM counts, as well as a 1,000-VM application- consistent backup. Figure 6 represents the groupings we used in each test category. Figure 6: Backup via NAS transport VM grouping.
- 7. A Principled Technologies test report 7Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Figure 7 lists the details for the sub-categories of VMs we used in this phase of testing. Server VM type Disk size (in GB) VM count 100 200 500 1,000 Active Directory server 55 1 1 3 5 Exchange Server 50 5 5 15 25 SharePoint Web server 55 3 6 15 SharePoint SQL server 160 1 2 5 Web application SQL server 50 4 10 24 50 Standalone Web server 22 15 30 75 150 OS 22 75 150 375 750 Figure 7: Production VMs on NAS Storage. Color-coding corresponds with Figure 6. WHAT WE FOUND Scenario 1 – SAN testing vs. Competitor “V” Backup with virtual application protection via SAN transport Using a comparable Intel® Xeon® processor-based server platform with identical memory and I/O configurations to the NetBackup Integrated Appliance as the backup target and using Competitor “V’s” enterprise backup software and best practices,2 we timed how long it took to complete an application-consistent backup of a group of VMs using SAN transport. For this scenario, we created policies or groups containing the client VMs we wished to target, and from the GUI, instructed the orchestration server of each product to perform backups of the entire group. The NetBackup solution backed up 1,000 VMs in 67.3 percent less time than the Competitor “V” solution—5 hours and 52 minutes less. In other words, the NetBackup solution completed the backup of 1,000 VMs in less than one-third the time that Competitor “V” did. Figure 8 shows the total time to complete the SAN transport backup for both solutions at every level of VM count we tested. 2 This configuration fell within the recommendations of Competitor “V.”
- 8. A Principled Technologies test report 8Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Figure 8: The total time each system took to complete vStorage APIs-based SAN transport backup in hours:minutes:seconds. Lower numbers are better. We closely examined our infrastructure to ensure there were no bottlenecks affecting either solution’s performance. After we found no evidence of bottlenecks in our test bed, we tested each platform. When running backups, we found Competitor “V” was at its maximum performance, analysis of data captured during backup runs suggested that the VM storage I/O was the limiting resource. As can be seen in Figure 10, when all eight streams were concurrently active, the virtual machine storage showed consistently high disk utilization, higher than the impact from NetBackup-based VADP backups for the same number of streams. See Appendix C for more details on the storage latency we saw during the run. Competitor “V” runs longer than a typical 6- to 8-hour backup window, as we saw with our 8-hour window. This means that when it runs over the typical backup window, production applications may not be able to operate at peak efficiency due to the impact of resource contention, as Figures 9 and 10 show.
- 9. A Principled Technologies test report 9Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Figure 9: Disk utilization for the four individual NetApp filers for Veritas NetBackup. Figure 10: Disk utilization for the four individual NetApp filers for Competitor “V.”
- 10. A Principled Technologies test report 10Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Recovery at scale When multiple servers need recovering at the same time, in the case of an off- site disaster recovery operation, for example, the ability to recover servers quickly can mean a faster return to service and a smaller impact on your bottom line. In our labs at Principled Technologies, we compared the time it took to recover a single application VM, and concurrently, 8, 16, and 24 application VMs with Symantec NetBackup 7.6 and the Competitor “V” solution. As seen in Figure 11, the two backup solutions delivered comparable performance at every concurrent recovery level with the exception of the last one, with 24 application VMs, where Competitor “V” started to show instability. We found that Competitor “V” consistently failed due to a hard-coded timeout value when concurrent recoveries are performed at the higher end of the scale. Figure 11: The total time each system took to complete concurrent restores in hours:minutes:seconds. Lower numbers are better.
- 11. A Principled Technologies test report 11Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Scenario 2 – Storage-array snapshot-based backup testing vs. Competitor “V” Backup testing via NAS array-based snapshot Our second scenario tested the ability to integrate with NetApp array-based snapshots to create recovery points in a high-VM-count environment. First, we ran Veritas NetBackup Replication Director and the comparable software from Competitor “V” on 100 application VMs and then on 200, 500, and 1,000 VMs. At the 1,000-VM level, crash-consistent recovery points with the NetBackup solution took up to 54.1 percent less time than the Competitor “V” solution. Because Competitor “V” failed to perform application-consistent backups at 1,000 VMs, we had to scale down the environment for further investigation. In the crash-consistent snapshot use case, as we increased our VM count from 100 to 1,000, the total integration times with NetBackup Replication Director increased slightly, from 5 minutes and 4 seconds with 100 VMs to 8 minutes and 29 seconds with 1,000 VMs. The total recovery-point integration times with comparable software from Competitor “V” increased at a much greater rate, from 2 minutes and 39 seconds for 100 VMs to 18 minutes and 29 seconds for 1,000 VMs. Figure 12 shows the total time to complete array-based snapshots for both solutions at every level of VM count we tested. Figure 12: The total time each system took to complete a storage array- based snapshot backup in minutes:seconds. Lower numbers are better. Note: For all testing, we did not enable snapshot indexing or make copies of the array- based snapshots. We measured integration with application-consistent recovery points at 1,000 VMs and crash-consistent recovery points for both systems at four VM counts: 100, 200, 500, and 1,000. There was no noteworthy I/O activity on the storage or the backup targets to measure or report because our testing measured hardware-based snapshots without indexing. Additionally, we encountered greater instability when we tried to get Competitor “V” to perform application-consistent snapshots. After initially attempting to get 1,000 VMs backed up and encountering a hard-coded timeout error, we went
- 12. A Principled Technologies test report 12Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) backwards and tried to determine where the failure was. We determined that application-consistent snapshots from Competitor “V” started failing when the environment grew to a point somewhere between 200 and 300 VMs. Figure 13 shows the application-consistent and crash-consistent times for both solutions. 100 VMs 200 VMs 500 VMs 1,000 VMs Application-consistent recovery points Veritas NetBackup Integrated Appliance with NetBackup Replication Director 00:38:22 Competitor “V” with snapshot integration technology 03:49:06 Crash-consistent recovery points Veritas NetBackup Integrated Appliance with NetBackup Replication Director 0:05:04 0:05:17 0:06:30 00:08:29 Competitor “V” with snapshot integration technology 0:02:39 0:04:22 0:09:42 0:18:29 Figure 13: The times to complete application- and crash-consistent recovery points for both solutions in hours:minutes:seconds. Lower numbers are better. CONCLUSION In an enterprise environment, a data center VM footprint can grow quickly; large-scale deployments of thousands of virtual machines are becoming increasingly common. Risk of failure grows proportionally to the number of systems deployed and critical failures are unavoidable. Your ability to offer data protection from a backup solution is critical to business continuity. Elongated, inefficient protection windows can create resource contention with production environments, making it critical to execute system backup in a finite window of time. The Veritas NetBackup Integrated Appliance running NetBackup 7.6 offered application protection to 1,000 VMs in 67.3 percent less time in SAN testing and used NetApp array-based snapshots to create recovery points in 54.1 percent less time than Competitor “V.” NetBackup was able to perform application-consistent backups at 1,000 VMs while Competitor “V” started to fail as the environment approached 300 VMs. Also, Competitor “V” was not able to complete a concurrent restore of 24 VMs while Veritas NetBackup was. The ability to complete backups and recoveries at scale are the most critical factor when determining the right solution for you. These time savings can scale as your VM footprint grows, allowing you to execute both system protection and user- friendly, simplified recovery.
- 13. A Principled Technologies test report 13Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) APPENDIX A – SYSTEM CONFIGURATION INFORMATION Figure 14 lists the information for the server from the NetBackup solution. System Dell PowerEdge M420 blade server (vSphere host) Power supplies (in the Dell PowerEdge M1000e Blade Enclosure) Total number 6 Vendor and model number Dell A236P-00 Wattage of each (W) 2,360 Cooling fans (in the Dell PowerEdge M1000e Blade Enclosure) Total number 9 Vendor and model number Dell YK776 Rev. X50 Dimensions (h x w) of each 3.1” x 3.5” Volts 12 Amps 7 General Number of processor packages 2 Number of cores per processor 8 Number of hardware threads per core 2 System power management policy Performance CPU Vendor Intel Name Xeon Model number E5-2420 Stepping 2S Socket type FCLGA1356 Core frequency (GHz) 1.9 Bus frequency 7.2 L1 cache 32 KB + 32 KB (per core) L2 cache 256 KB (per core) L3 cache 15 MB Platform Vendor and model number Dell PowerEdge M420 Motherboard model number 0MN3VC BIOS name and version 1.2.4 BIOS settings Default, Performance profile Memory module(s) Total RAM in system (GB) 96 Vendor and model number Samsung® M393B2G70BH0-YH9 Type PC3L-10600R Speed (MHz) 1,333 Speed running in the system (MHz) 1,333 Timing/Latency (tCL-tRCD-tRP-tRASmin) 9-9-9-36 Size (GB) 16
- 14. A Principled Technologies test report 14Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) System Dell PowerEdge M420 blade server (vSphere host) Number of RAM module(s) 6 Chip organization Double-sided Rank Dual Operating system Name VMware vSphere 5.5.0 Build number 1209974 File system VMFS Kernel VMkernel 5.5.0 Language English Graphics Vendor and model number Matrox® G200eR Graphics memory (MB) 16 RAID controller Vendor and model number Dell PERC H310 Embedded Firmware version 20.10.1-0084 Driver version 5.1.112.64 (6/12/2011) Cache size (MB) 0 MB Hard drive Vendor and model number Dell SG9XCS1 Number of disks in system 2 Size (GB) 50 Buffer size (MB) N/A RPM N/A Type SSD Ethernet adapters Vendor and model number 2 x Broadcom® BCM57810 NetXtreme® II 10 GigE Type LOM USB ports Number 2 External Type 2.0 Figure 14: Detailed information for the server we tested from the NetBackup solution.
- 15. A Principled Technologies test report 15Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Figure 15 lists the information for the NetApp storage from the NetBackup solution. System NetApp FAS3240 Platform Vendor and model number 4 x NetApp FAS3240 OS name and version NetApp Release 8.1.3 (7-Mode) Hard drives Number of drives 24 Size (GB) 560 RPM 15K Type SAS Network adapters Vendor and model number 2 x 10Gbps Type Integrated Fiber adapters Vendor and model number 2 x 8Gbps Type PCI-E Figure 15: System configuration information for the NetApp storage array. Figure 16 details the configuration of the NetBackup integrated appliance and the Competitor “V” media server. System NetBackup 5230 integrated appliance Competitor “V” media server General Number of processor packages 2 2 Number of cores per processor 6 6 Number of hardware threads per core 2 2 System power management policy Default Default CPU Vendor Intel Intel Name Xeon E5-2620 Xeon E5-2620 Model number E5-2620 E5-2620 Socket type FCLGA2011 FCLGA2011 Core frequency (GHz) 2 GHz 2 GHz Bus frequency 7.2 GT/s 7.2 GT/s L1 cache 32 KB + 32 KB per core 32 KB + 32 KB per core L2 cache 1.5 MB (256 KB per core) 1.5 MB (256 KB per core) L3 cache 15 MB 15 MB Platform Vendor and model number Veritas NetBackup 52 30 Integrated Appliance N/A Memory module(s) Total RAM in system (GB) 64 64 Vendor and model number Ventura Tech® D3-60MM104SV-999 Ventura Tech D3-60MM104SV-999 Type PC3-10600 PC3-10600
- 16. A Principled Technologies test report 16Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) System NetBackup 5230 integrated appliance Competitor “V” media server Speed (MHz) 1,333 1,333 Speed running in the system (MHz) 1,333 1,333 Timing/Latency (tCL-tRCD-tRP- tRASmin) 9-9-9-27 9-9-9-27 Size (GB) 8 8 Number of RAM module(s) 8 8 Chip organization Double-sided Double-sided Rank Dual rank Dual rank Operating system Name NetBackup Appliance 2.6.0.2 Windows Server 2012 Build number 2.6.32.59-0.7-default-fsl N/A RAID controller Vendor and model number Intel RMS25CB080 Intel RMS25CB080 Firmware version 23.9.0-0025 23.9.0-0025 Cache size (MB) 1024 1024 Hard drives Vendor and model number Seagate Constellation ES ST1000NM0001 Seagate Constellation ES ST1000NM0001 Number of drives 10 10 Size (GB) 1,000 1,000 RPM 7.2K 7.2K Type SAS SAS Storage shelf Vendor and model number HGST HUS723030ALS640 HGST HUS723030ALS640 Number of drives 16 16 Size (GB) 3,000 3,000 RPM 7.2K 7.2K Type SAS SAS Ethernet adapters Vendor and model number Intel X520 10Gbps dual-port Ethernet adapter Intel X520 10Gbps dual-port Ethernet adapter Type PCI-E PCI-E Figure 16: Detailed information on the media server from each solution.
- 17. A Principled Technologies test report 17Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) APPENDIX B – HOW WE TESTED We set up hardware and software for Competitor “V” according to administrative best practices. Creating a storage lifecycle policy with NetBackup 7.6 1. Open a connection to the NetBackup machine. 2. If the Veritas NetBackup Activity Monitor is not open, open it. 3. Log into nbu-master-a with administration credentials. 4. Go to StorageStorage Lifecycle Policies. 5. Right-click in the right pane, and select New Storage Lifecycle Policy. 6. Enter a name for your SLP. 7. Click Add. 8. In the New Operation window, change the operation to Snapshot, and select primary-snap as your destination storage. 9. Click OK. Creating a policy with NetBackup 7.6 1. Open a connection to the NetBackup machine. 2. If the Veritas NetBackup Activity Monitor is not open, open it. 3. Log into nbu-master-a with administration credentials. 4. Go to Policies. 5. Right-click the All Policies area, and select New Policy. 6. Under Add a New Policy, enter your policy name, and click OK. 7. Change Policy type to VMware. 8. Click the Policy storage drop-down menu, and select the policy you created earlier. 9. Check Use Replication Director, and click Options. 10. In the Replication Director options, change Maximum Snapshots to 1,000, and make sure that Application Consistent Snapshot is Enabled. 11. Click the Schedules tab. 12. In the Schedules tab, select New. 13. In the Attributes window, enter a name for your scheduled backup, click Calendar, and click the Calendar Schedule tab. 14. In the Calendar Schedule tab, select a date as far away as you deem reasonable, and click OK. 15. Click the Clients tab. 16. Click Select automatically through query. If a warning window appears, click Yes. 17. Choose the VMs you wish to backup through queries (for example, if you want to back up all VMs on a drive, choose Datastore in the Field category, and enter the drive you want to pull all VMs from in quotes in the Values field.
- 18. A Principled Technologies test report 18Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) Running a test with NetBackup 7.6 1. Open a connection to the NetBackup machine. 2. If the Veritas NetBackup Activity Monitor is not open, open it. 3. Log into nbu-master-a with administration credentials. 4. Go to Policies. 5. Right-click the policy you wish to run, and select Manual Backup. 6. Click OK. Note: In the case of the NAS backups, we had two separate policies as each one targets the opposite VMs. Make sure to run the even and odd backup. Backing up VM hosts in NetBackup 7.6 1. Select Policies. 2. Under All Policies, right-click and select New Policy. 3. Provide a policy name and click OK. 4. On the Attributes tab, use the pull-down menu for Policy type and select VMware. 5. For Destination, use the pull-down menu and select your target storage. We selected media-msdp. 6. Check the box for Disable client-side deduplication. 7. Check the box for Use Accelerator. 8. On the Schedules tab, create a backup schedule based on the desired parameters. 9. On the Clients tab, choose Select automatically through query. 10. Select the master server as the NetBackup host to perform automatic virtual machine selection. 11. Build a query to select the correct VMs required for the backup job. 12. Click Test Query to ensure the correct VMs are properly selected. 13. Start the backup. Launching collectors and compiling data for NetBackup 7.6 The following two tasks (Launch the collectors & Compile the data) should be executed from the domainadministrator login on INFRA-SQL. Launching the collectors Note: If this is a first run collection, skip to step 2. 1. Double-click the collector job (located in C:Scripts) associated with the number of VMs you want to collect. 2. In the PuTTY session launched for the media server collection, enter the following sequence: Support Maintenance (P@ssw0rd) iostat –d 30 3. RDP into the Backup-Test server. 4. On the NetBackup Console, expand nbu-master-aNetBackup ManagementPolicies. 5. Right-click the Policy you want to start, and select Manual Backup. 6. To start the job, click OK.
- 19. A Principled Technologies test report 19Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) 7. Open the Activity Monitor on the NetBackup Administration Console. 8. The Backup job will execute and spawn four different kinds of jobs for each target VM: Application State Check VM Snapshot Backup Image Cleanup Compiling the data In the following steps, ### represents the number of VMs you’re testing, and # represents the test number. 1. At job completion, double-click the StopCollection.bat file (located in C:Scripts). 2. Capture screenshots of the Main Backup Job (both Tabs) and sub jobs for a SQL server, an Exchange Server, and a SharePoint server. a. Save each screenshot in: E:Veritas Test Results01 Backup Test### VM Results RepositoryTest # b. If this is a first run, return to step 1 above. 3. On the menu at the top of the NetBackup Console, select FileExport. 4. Select All Rows, and export to <Test#.xls>. Click Save. 5. Manually select all the rows in the activity monitor and delete them. 6. Open WinSCP. 7. Select My Workspace on the left panel and click Login. This will open a connection and automatically log into each of the ESX servers undergoing data collection. a. In the left panel, browse for the correct job folder: ### VM Results RepositoryTest #esxtop b. In the right panel, select the esxout file (which may be of considerable size) and drag it into the esxtop directory. c. Once the file transfer is complete, delete the esxtop from the server (right panel). d. Repeat steps a-c for each of the esx servers. 8. Close WinSCP. 9. On the INFRA-SQL server, open E:Putty Output. 10. In a separate window, open: E:Veritas Test Results01 Backup Test### VM Results RepositoryTest #sysstats. 11. Move all the files from E:Putty Output to the Test folder you selected in the previous step. 12. Close all Explorer windows. 13. Return to step 1 above. General concurrent restore procedure 1. Delete restore target VM(s) from disk in vCenter. 2. Launch the data collector script. 3. Execute a restore job using one of the following methods: a. For NetBackup:
- 20. A Principled Technologies test report 20Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) i. Open a PuTTY session to the NBU master server (172.16.100.100). 1. Log in as admin/P@ssw0rd 2. Type support and press Enter. 3. Type maintenance and press Enter. 4. Enter the maintenance password P@ssw0rd 5. Type elevate and press Enter. ii. Copy the commands to be executed from a text file and paste them into the command line interface on the NetBackup master server. Example recovery command: nbrestorevm -vmw -C client_DNS_name -O -vmtm san -vmpo -vmbz –vmkeephv 4. Determine the time by determining the difference between the time the first job begins and the end-time of the last job to complete. 5. Export the NBU job log to disk and copy it to the results folder. 6. Stop the collection script. 7. Transfer the relevant data collector output into the test folder.
- 21. A Principled Technologies test report 21Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) APPENDIX C – STORAGE LATENCY Figure 17 shows the storage latency for the Competitor “V” solution. Figure 17: CPU utilization for the Competitor “V” solution using the media agent.
- 22. A Principled Technologies test report 22Veritas NetBackup benchmark comparison: Data protection in a large-scale virtual environment (Part 3) ABOUT PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES Principled Technologies, Inc. 1007 Slater Road, Suite 300 Durham, NC, 27703 www.principledtechnologies.com We provide industry-leading technology assessment and fact-based marketing services. We bring to every assignment extensive experience with and expertise in all aspects of technology testing and analysis, from researching new technologies, to developing new methodologies, to testing with existing and new tools. When the assessment is complete, we know how to present the results to a broad range of target audiences. We provide our clients with the materials they need, from market-focused data to use in their own collateral to custom sales aids, such as test reports, performance assessments, and white papers. Every document reflects the results of our trusted independent analysis. We provide customized services that focus on our clients’ individual requirements. Whether the technology involves hardware, software, Web sites, or services, we offer the experience, expertise, and tools to help our clients assess how it will fare against its competition, its performance, its market readiness, and its quality and reliability. Our founders, Mark L. Van Name and Bill Catchings, have worked together in technology assessment for over 20 years. As journalists, they published over a thousand articles on a wide array of technology subjects. They created and led the Ziff-Davis Benchmark Operation, which developed such industry-standard benchmarks as Ziff Davis Media’s Winstone and WebBench. They founded and led eTesting Labs, and after the acquisition of that company by Lionbridge Technologies were the head and CTO of VeriTest. Principled Technologies is a registered trademark of Principled Technologies, Inc. All other product names are the trademarks of their respective owners. Disclaimer of Warranties; Limitation of Liability: PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. HAS MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THE ACCURACY AND VALIDITY OF ITS TESTING, HOWEVER, PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, RELATING TO THE TEST RESULTS AND ANALYSIS, THEIR ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR QUALITY, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES RELYING ON THE RESULTS OF ANY TESTING DO SO AT THEIR OWN RISK, AND AGREE THAT PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ITS EMPLOYEES AND ITS SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FROM ANY CLAIM OF LOSS OR DAMAGE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY ALLEGED ERROR OR DEFECT IN ANY TESTING PROCEDURE OR RESULT. IN NO EVENT SHALL PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BE LIABLE FOR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH ITS TESTING, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT SHALL PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S LIABILITY, INCLUDING FOR DIRECT DAMAGES, EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID IN CONNECTION WITH PRINCIPLED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S TESTING. CUSTOMER’S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES ARE AS SET FORTH HEREIN.