OS choice for Netbackup

[Kafkaz]

We have always had our infrastructure on HPUX servers.  We are at the point where we need to refresh our Netbackup servers.  I am contemplating maybe changing OS's.  I wanted to know if any one has seen some benefits or inconveniences for a large infrastructure under AIX, HPUX or RHEL?
A
lso are there any problems in having a mix of the master on AIX or HPUX and the media servers on RHEL?

[J_H_Is_gone]

This question has been asked before.
The best answer is what OS do you know best, has you have to maintain it.
I have had a windows master and an aix master - I am happier with aix - don't have to boot as often.

As you are on HPUX you might have run into a few things that you cannot run on it, AIX as the same issue, some things just cannot be run on AIX - like NOM or Ops Center.  

There is no problem with a mixed setup.

I had window master 2 windows media 1 aix media

now I have aix master/media plus 1 aix media and 2 windows SAN media servers.

Everything works ok.
My cohort is a windows person, so when he needs to do cli he will use the SAN media server for scripts.  Where I prefer to do the cli on the aix server.

[Nicolai]

I have a large install on Linux. We did use HP-UX before for master and media servers, but the Intel x86_64 boxes are Superior  to HP-UX when you compare price and performance. I don't regret choosing Linux for my netbackup install.

[zer0sig]

In terms of raw performance, I would expect an enterprise-class UNIX OS to be superior. In terms of ease of administration post-install, it depends on whether you are more GUI-oriented (advantage Windows) or CLI-oriented (advantage UNIX). In terms of ease and turn-key-ness of installation, I'd say Windows has it.

Edited to note that when I say UNIX I mean all "modern" UNIXlike OSes, this includes all BSD-derivatives (BSD/OS, Freebsd, NetBSD, OpenBSD) as well as SysV-derived ones (Linux, Solaris, SCO) and not just OSes that are or were officially named UNIX(tm). Included is all the old-guard but mostly obsolete or outdated purpose-built Unixes (HP-UX, SGI, AIX, etc). Anything that likely has support of a modern NetBackup release and falls under UNIX design principles.

[sql_noob]

we used to run it on solaris and now run it on Windows. tried for 2 weeks to install on Linux but had problems with the tape library drivers. took me 3-4 hours from start to finish to start my first test backup on Windows.

i asked the same question a year ago and people who go to the conferences and talk to the devs said run on any OS you want

[Will_Restore]

we did a new 6.5 install & upgrade to 6.5.5 on RedHat & I was amazed how fast & simple it was.  no trouble at all with drivers for Quantum tape library with LTO4 drives.  the first system took a few hours since I was unfamiliar with both RedHat and Netbackup 6.5 at that point.  the next system took an hour or so to setup.  used to be a diehard Solaris shop but these times they are a-changing.

[rjrumfelt]

I think you would be happy with any unix variant that you are used to.  I would just avoid Windows like the plague.

[teiva-boy]

Surprisingly on identical hardware and no tweaking done what so ever, Windows is slightly faster than linux as a master/media.  I have no experience with solaris, unix, hpux, nor aix.

From a simplicity standpoint, I like Windows and it works for *most* environments.  However, I sometimes may stand up a linux based media server for those like OS's.  

[zer0sig]

teiva-boy, I would expect a small netbackup installation to run better on Windows because Windows does not know how to multitask well - so if you set up a server to only do netbackup, Windows will throw most of its resources at it and do everything else poorly. A Linux server will actually try to provide availability for other services by default. However, Linux is dramatically more tweakable at the lower levels of the OS and I would be shocked if a similarly configured Linux server did not outperform Windows. With larger numbers of media servers per master, and/or other services running, Linux will beat Windows handily. It's really a matter of what you need. Linux client is probably not as well tuned stock, either. This is usually the case with Windows vs. Linux (or other UNIX variants) benchmarks. the group doing the benchmarking known nothing about configuring and stripping down Linux as a purpose-built server optimized to the task at hand. In fact, I find that few "administrators" of Linux know how to really get under the hood and tweak things either, but lots of Windows people know how to cut out unnecessary services/software and tweak the OS for good performance esp. with single primary purposes (do not recommend Windows at all for more than one production purpose at once unless you have a LOT of machine to throw at it or have no other option). This has been my experience over the past 15 years or so of running both, YMMV.

[teiva-boy]

Like I said, no tweaking nor tuning, Windows is faster.  But I'm sure if time and effort were put into it, like you said, *nix would be faster, as there is more to tweak and tune compared to windows...  
Well then again, MS does have a tuning guide for Windows that has you going through the registry to tweak all kinds of settings for buffers and interrupts...  But alas, it's such a no-no to be in the registry, I've yet to meet an admin that successfully has done anything like the forementioned MS doc in my past 13 years in IT :p

That said, since Win2k3 SP2, Win2k8 now (not sure on R2), I feel that all misconceptions about Windows not being stable is old news.  It's plenty fast and stable, and with the new Win2k8 driver architecture that does not run at the kernel level, it's much more stable and a driver doesnt bring down the entire OS, i.e. BSOD.

And yes removing un-needed services are a good start to tuning a machine, it also minimizes the attack surface, and minimizes configurations.  The new Win2k8 roles and the Server Core role is a great move by MS.

Okay, I admit I like Windows

[Andy_Welburn]

Wouldn't have guessed!

At the end of the day it's what you're comfortable with (or what your told to support!) that determines the best route to go - not much point supporting NB if you don't know your way around the OS. (Well it'd be "interesting" to start with...!)

[zer0sig]

I agree that 2K3 is definitely stable enough for the enterprise, especially if you pay attention to what hotfixes and the like you install. There have been occasional quirks, but every OS occasionally has issues with patches not taking right. Can't speak for 2K8 really - the enterprise-class servers I have worked with (esp. telecom and financial industry) do NOT run 2k8 as the companies comissioning these servers still don't think 2k8 is ready for prime time. I don't know that I necessarily agree but would like to do some stress testing to see. Telecom and banks are a bit more conservative than some other industries, I've found. I find that the Windows version and even moreso the approved list of applications leaves something to be desired as far as compatibility and modern functionality and security features are concerned.

I still prefer Win2000 to any other Windows server OS, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't try to sell that idea to my boss, but I would be very comfortable in using it for my own needs as a server.