This post is more than 5 years old
75 Posts
0
1059
AFTD on DFS
Hi guys,
We have a customer who has a backup server running Windows 2003. They are backing up to a number of AFTD volumes that are on a mounted disk on C:\BACKUP
I don't know much about windows, but I guess this is what's known as a DFS mount.
Is this way of having AFTD's on DFS even supported? Does anyone have any documentation about this, I haven't been able to find any.
/tony
jkernagh
35 Posts
0
March 25th, 2011 06:00
Hi Tony, a couple of things:
1) I'm as close as certain without proof that we wouldn't supportan AFTD on DFS; there are quite a few implications and I just don't imagine this is ever going to be on the roadmap as there are advanced AFTD technologies forthcoming;
2) In general, if you can, it's better to keep an AFTD alone on a given volume. While we technically support multiple AFTDs, the AFTD assumes the entire volume is its to use and when an AFTD fills it requires manual intervention to correct (which is more likely as the AFTDs may clash with one another and staging Watermarks don't calculate).
3) DFS is backed up as part of the VSS USER DATA in R2; so you'd be backing up your backup unless you specify savesets explicitly;
4) If the intention is to replicate and pool backup data there are better technologies available (DataDomains have a pile of options in this regard).
Unless someone happens by to correct me I would avoid the DFS-AFTD pairing as I can see the possibility for all kinds of ugly snares.
HTH, James.
tonyalbers
75 Posts
0
March 25th, 2011 05:00
Oh, they're running NW 7.5.3.2 b 541 on windows 2003 R2
/tony
tonyalbers
75 Posts
0
March 25th, 2011 06:00
Thanks James,
I did think it was a strange way of doing this.
Thanks for your help.
/tony
jkernagh
35 Posts
0
March 25th, 2011 09:00
Happy to help; I can understand why they might have thought this a creative way of dispersing an AFTD for example, but as often as not, depsite the flexibility NetWorker allows, it's pretty easy to shoot yourself in the foot if the underlying internals are overlooked.
Regardless - perhaps the way to approach it is to find out what they are hoping to do - and then work within that framework to find or develop a solution which meets their needs. Good luck! --James.
tonyalbers
75 Posts
0
March 28th, 2011 04:00
Yes, if one wants to disperse an AFTD.. But why would anyone do that when there are a number of other ways to make sure it doesn't disappear.
Do you know more about EMC's official view on this?
Thanks,
/tony