Symantec NetBackup Cloud & EMC Atmos Cloud Storage
Hello,
I am testing "Backup to the Cloud" in our company.
We have Symantec NetBackup 7.6.0.2 on Solaris 10 and EMC/Atmos Storage v 2.1.6 ...
Question 1: Is NetBackup 100% compatible with the EMC/Atmos Storage interface using the Amazon S3 or AT&T Synaptic method?
Question 2: Did anyone succeed in establishing a good-working backup/restore-mechanism using this method?
***
My test szenario1: I was able to create a Cloud Storage Server in S3-compatible mode, but I couldn't create a volume with NetBackup. I get the error message:
"RDSM has encountered an STS error: createDiskVolume
failed to create disk volume, system call failed"
There seems to be a kind of "communication mismatch" between NBU and the EMC/Atmos storage system. By the way, writing Backups directly to S3-Amazon.com worked fine, but this is not the solution for us.
***
My test szenario2: Writing to EMC/Atmos via the AT&T Synaptic method seemed to work fine. Backups were created during my vacation in August, but the restores seemed to be very slooooooow. Ok, I tried to delete/expire the backup images and I have found out, that "someone" :) created nearly 2 millions very small files, each around 10k or something. Is this NBU's fault? Or Atmos' fault? Now I have the problem that - although I expired all the "backup2cloud"-images correctly - I can't delete neither the stu nor disk pool nor cloud storage server because NBU tells me that there are images to delete... §$%&/( Now I have installed the AtmosFox-Explorer plug-in for Firefox and delete all the images manually, but this seems to be a neverending story...
***
So... anyone out there who experienced the same behaviour?
Thanks in advance,
Andreas Brosig
EMC Atoms is not listed in Hardware Compatibility List for now, so use of Atoms is your own responsibility. Although EMC says Atoms works completely like Cloud Storage services, it is not supported by NetBackup.
I suppose creation of vast number of small files is handled by could storage plugin or Atoms itself, as this use case is not supported we can not do anything against this result.