Netbackup UNIX vs Windows NT Server

[Donna_Maya]

We have the opportunity to pick either UNIX or Windows NT for the master server. Most of the clients are a mixture of UNIX & Windows based, Oracle applications. Setting hardware aside and looking at the O/S for the master server. Who can tell me which is the best O/S for the master server?? I can't seem to find any real in-depth answers, only pitches for the O/S that people are using currently. The issue becomes, does NetBackup 6.0 benefit from either O/S & which one performs better?

I am open to new ideas and concrete answers on the pros/cons of each. I know there is someone out there who can definitively say why one is better than the other. Please help!

My basic concerns are:

1) Which O/S is more stable for the Master Server
2) Which O/S allows more scripting & reporting
3) Which O/S is better performance for the Master Server

Any insights are much appreciated.

[Donna_Maya]

Eventually Windows Server 2003 SP1 support lifecycle will be nearing its end. What do you think about the move to Longhorn? One of the problems I have with keeping this on Windows is there are too many hands in the pot. Meaning, it appears the Windows server administrator has one too many things to do; so if he stays involved with the backups; there is a chance for multiple problems; ie backup failures because he is not working with the system all the time. Another issue the management has here is that no one else knows UNIX that well. But, they are planning the ERP large project around UNIX / Oracle. I am at a loss; mainly because I can thrive in either environment; but have seen the benefits of NetBackup in UNIX because of the additional reporting/scripting abilities. I have been told that there are just as many scripting/reporting abilities in NB 6.0 for Windows, but so far I have not found that to be true. My main concern is that the ERP solution is moving towards UNIX, but they seem to be stuck in a Windows NB mindset. Thanks for everyones posts.

[Stumpr2]

> I have been told that there are just as many scripting/reporting abilities in NB 6.0 for Windows

just as many? that is simply not true.
so well educated yet so misinformed....

[Donna_Maya]

You made my morning! Believe me, I fully agree with you, but that is what I have been told by the Windows group. See what I have to convince? :)

[h_m]

As everyone has said, if hardware and money is not a concern then UNIX is the one to go for.

It's also easier to migrate between servers, easier to do things like move the catalog to a bigger disk as it grows (general UNIX admin) etc.... Kernel tuning is of course an advantage, and UNIX copes with SAN attached devices better than Windows. One of the worst things about WIndows is the registry of course. One place veritas have messed things up is in the NOM asapect, which can only sit on Windows (muppets). UNIX is probably less prone to virus attacks as well.

NetBackup originated on UNIX and was then ported onto WIndows, so that may also tell you something :)

[AKopel]

Actually,
You have plenty of time before support for Windows Server 2003 Ends.
MIcrosoft's policy is that Mainstream support ends 2 years after the next version is released and extended support 5 years after. So that puts you at 2010 for Mainstream and around 2013 before extended support ends. I don't think the migration to longhorn should be difficult.
As for scripting, etc. The product itself (NBU) has just the same reporting abilities on Windows as Unix. Traditionally, Unix as an operating system has had better ways to manipulate this data. If you are looking for a better way to manipulate the data in windows, you could look into Powershell. It is supposed to bridge some of the gaps in scripting language between Windows and Unix. We are just beginning to play with it to see what it can do for us.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/technologies/management/powershell/default.mspx

Bottom line: Use whatever is going to be most 'comfortable' for your administrators. There are tools available for each to get the data you want.

[Donna_Maya]

Thanks Aaron; I will definitely look into the PowerShell app. Whichever road management chooses, I am surely going to be responsible (and probably have to be adaptive). Thanks for the EOL on the Windows Server, have you used any UNIX O/S as well - or just Windows? I am still not convinced of the reporting abilities are the same in the Windows NB arena, as UNIX - but maybe I'm still in learning curve. Let me know how it goes with your scripting and testing of PowerShell- I would be interested in knowing more. -Thanks

I am trying to be adaptive, but for good old reliability, functionality, down to earth process control and stability purposes; I am truly a UNIX administrator stuck in an ever-growing Windows world!

[AKopel]

Yea,
I can't speak to the differences completely, as I don't do much Unix administration myself. I do support 1 mail gateway device that has some Unix underpinnings and I know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to feel comfortable with it.

In terms of reporting, I would be curious as to where the reporting would be less for the Windows Version of NBU. I 'believe' (and correct me if I am wrong Unix NBU Admins) all the commands that are available in the Unix NBU are also available in the Windows NBU. Then it is just about massaging this data into a good readable format. And with Unix, you definitely can massage that data 'easier' and with less lines of code , but with the right tools in windows, you 'can' get it done, it just might take a little extra doing (and knowing 3 different languages, VBS, cmd shell, etc)
I 'think' that is where Powershell is supposed to help, in that it replaces all of this and is one language to learn. Time will tell I guess.

Anyways, good luck with your deployment, and realize that regardless, you have a good crew on this forum that can help you with whatever platform you go with!

AK

[Dennis_Strom]

I think if money is a concern go with unix. I have seen four different environments go from unix to windows (clearcase, mail, webservers, oracle database). In everyone of those situations their environment ended up costing more in hardware alone. The mail server went from one server with 4 cpu's and 12 meg of ram to 3 servers with 4 cpu's and 16 meg of ram a piece. Cleaarcase scaled about the same. The other two were not so bad but still needed bigger boxes to get the job done, and their uptime was not as good. In all our situations the initial cost was cheaper but they had to keep adding hardware in order to get the same performance the was previously being achieved. Keep in mind with cost the OS. Solaris is basically free. The cost of support between windows and solaris is about the same.

With cygwin or other tools you can get unix functionality but you do not get unix durabilitiy. I have seen stable windows environments but those have usually been where things do not change a lot. Or, where the OS is not heavily stressed.

[Stumpr2]

> Anyways, good luck with your deployment, and realize that regardless, you have a good crew on this forum that can help you with whatever platform you go with!

Amen!

[Chad_Wansing]

I run 4 sites, all Windows Server 2003 masters, and I have had a very good experience. I know UNIX although I would never consider myself "well-versed". I personally prefer Windows to UNIX, but that is more for the interface and comfort of not working outside of my background more than anything. The Windows sys. admins. don't touch my servers, they come to me if something needs to happen.

Unless you really going to put your master server on Windows NT instead of 2003 Server, I definitely wouldn't count Windows out of the OS group that a master server can easily, and very successfully be run upon.

[AKopel]

Cool!
I'm not the 'only' one here defending W2K3! :)

AK

[Donna_Maya]

Marking as closed.Message was edited by:
Donna Maya

[Donna_Maya]

Thanks to everyone on this post; all the information was very valuable.