TSM on Win2K is a good bet. We've implemented a large cluster and it works
great. Highly recommend attaching storage and tapes to fiber SAN as then
you can fail that over easily as well.
My feeling is that while Unix in general will probably outperform NT (read
the flames, etc., from previous discussions of this topic), HP-UX is
probably the orphan stepchild for TSM Server. Just my feeling based on my
travels. I've not seen many servers on this platform.
Win2K seems to have a much better IP stack and that stack appeared to be the
bottleneck on NT.
I also believe that mongo Intel hardware is getting real close to mongo Unix
hardware (now I know that Sun Big Iron and S70s are way different, but are
we talking about $200K boxes, or $50K boxes?) as far as performance and
costs go. So for some environments, and perhaps even most (all but the very
largest sites) can be adequately served by TSM on Intel platforms.
-----Original Message-----
From: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Scott Foley
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 11:46 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: NT Server vs. HP-UX Server
Background:
We are currently using TSM 3.7 on HP-UX 11.0 to backup a large disk array
(900 Gig). This array is connected to two 2000 series HP servers. One
server runs TSM and the other acts as a file server for the disk array. MC
service guard is also being used for fail over.
The disk array serves as data storage for a bunch of NT 4.0 servers.
Because of the way that these NT 4.0 servers access the data, we are needing
to replace the HP-UX front end with an NT cluster. (Samba and NFS access
don't work effectively with our requirements)
Question:
We are planning on replacing the two HP-UX servers with two clustered Win
2000 Servers. While I believe that HP-UX would be a better solution, would
it be worth the cost of retaining one HP-UX system simply for backups? We
would then have an NT system sitting around doing nothing waiting for the
other NT system to fail, so the NT solution would not cost us anything extra
for TSM. Because we would be keeping only one HP-UX system, we would also
lose the fail over capability if the server fails.
Thanks for any input,
Scott Foley
NetVoyage Corp.
