Background:
We're going replace our Backup Exec Media server. We're running version 11d, and I figure when we move over to the new server, we'll upgrade to 12.5
We won't use the new server for anything other than Backup Exec.
We're planning to get a Dell server that has space for 6 hard drives. We'll max it out with a 1TB drive in each drive slot.
The plan is to take the first two drives and make them a raid 1 (a.k.a. a mirror). This would be our drive c:, and that's where we'd install the OS and Backup Exec there. This drive would also have space for "low demand" B2D folders. ("Low Demand" in terms of how fast the server being backed up can
deliver the data across the ethernet network.)
And then each of the other 4 drives would be configured as an individual drive (a.k.a. jbod == "just a bunch of disks)
These drives are SAS drives, so each drive will have its own channel for data exchange through the controller.
We'll be using each JBOD drive as the space where we have our "high demand" backup to disk folders. ("High Demand" in terms of the speed of the network connection between the media server and the target server being backed up)
We'll be able to run 4 simultaneous of these "high demand" backup jobs without the data flow to the B2D folders interfering with each other.
Also attached to the server will be an HP tape library with 2 LTO3 drives and 48 slots. We're using the tape library now, will simply be moving it from the server we're using now to the new one.
The data destination of the each server or workstation we back up will be a B2D folder, and then we'll run a job that "duplicates the backup sets" onto LTO3 tape.
The idea behind this configuration is that we want to be running that tape drives smoothly and at full speed when were duplicating the data onto tape. That's why it is important that each of the "high demand" JBOD disks has its own SAS channel, is independent of the others going through the controller.
My questions:
Is it true that Backup Exec V12.5 running on Windows 2003 server can make good use of a quad core processor?
In the scenario I've described above, my feeling is that adding another quad core processor would be overkill. But it is only an extra $370 in a server that costs around $5,000. Any benefit that you can see between a backup exec only server with 4 processor cores vs 8 processor cores?
At this writing, I'm thinking about get 4GB of RAM for the server. That's the max it could have and still be a 32-bit system. Would there be any benefit in getting a 64-bit system? I'm guessing not, but maybe there's something about 64-bit windows, and 64-bit Backup Exec that would be benefit here.
At this writing, I know that within a year, one of the systems we'll be backing up will be a 64-bit system. But I don't think that means my backup server needs to be a 64-bit system.
At 4-GB of RAM, our new server will have twice the RAM that our current server has. And since I'm not expecting on to run more that 4 or 5 backup jobs simultaneously, it would seem to me that 4GB would be enough. But maybe you have some thoughts about something I'm not considering.
Thank you.
