Multi Server vs Single Server Editions

[theboyk]

Hello.

 

I'm considering upgrading to Retrospect Server 8 from 6.1 (latest version) and I'm just unsure about which version to get — the Multi Server or Single Server version? The data sheet doesn't really explain it very well, so I'm hoping someone here could shed some light for me?

 

Basically, here's what I'm backing up...

 

- 45+ Mac OS X (PPC & Intel boxes)

- 3 Xserves

 

via...

 

- Tandberg Data LTO-4 tape drive attached to a PPC G5 running 10.5.8 running Retrospect 6.1 (latest version), backing up over a gigbit network

 

Now, I'm not backing up entire machines, etc. Each machine, including the three Xserves, has a specific folder that gets backed up. That's it. Right now I have Retrospect client running on all the machines and all is good (well, "good" as Retrospect 6.1 is showing it's age, but that's another forum post).

 

So, not sure how backing up a folder on an Xserve impacts things? It sounds like I need the mutli-server version since I'm backing up a folder on more than one Xserve? But, not sure if that's right or not — does it really matter that I'm backing up a folder on an Xserve vs a folder on an iMac?

 

Any insight into this would be much appreciated!

 

Thanks,

Kristin.

[rhwalker]

Basically, here's what I'm backing up...

 

- 45+ Mac OS X (PPC & Intel boxes)

- 3 Xserves

 

via...

 

- Tandberg Data LTO-4 tape drive attached to a PPC G5 running 10.5.8 running Retrospect 6.1 (latest version), backing up over a gigbit network

That determines the answer.

 

The machine running Retrospect is considered a "server", and the three xServes, each running Mac OS X Server (that's all that an xServe runs) are each considered "servers". That's four servers.

 

You need the Multi-Server version. By EMC's pricing model, the data being backed up doesn't matter; it's the OS, with the "gotcha" that the Retrospect machine is also a "server", regardless of the OS.

 

You will be very, very disappointed in the performance if you install Retrospect 8 on the PPC machine. Retrospect 8 on PPC performs very poorly. One of the reasons is that the design decision was made (probably the right one) for media set exchange between Retrospect Windows and Retrospect 8+ Mac, to store the data in little-endian (Intel) format, which means that the PPC implementation spends a lot of time doing byte swapping.

 

So, not sure how backing up a folder on an Xserve impacts things? It sounds like I need the mutli-server version since I'm backing up a folder on more than one Xserve? But, not sure if that's right or not — does it really matter that I'm backing up a folder on an Xserve vs a folder on an iMac?

Conceptually, it doesn't matter. But it does matter to EMC's pricing model.

 

You also can get the single server version and buy additional server licenses. I haven't priced where that becomes the cheaper alternative.

 

Read the fine print here:

Retrospect 8 for Macintosh marketing blurb

 

Retrospect for Macintosh Editions

 

Retrospect 8 Multi Server Unlimited Clients is designed for small and midsize businesses and branch offices, and departments in large organizations protecting more than one server. Retrospect Multi Server runs on a Mac OS X or Mac OS X Server computer and provides licenses to protect an unlimited number of networked Mac, Windows, and Linux servers, desktops, and notebooks. Annual Support and Maintenance is included with this product.

 

Retrospect 8 Single Server Unlimited Clients is designed for small and midsize businesses, branch offices, and departments in large organizations protecting one server. Retrospect Single Server runs on a Mac OS X server and provides licenses to protect an unlimited number of networked Mac, Windows, and Linux desktops and notebooks. [color:red]A server client license can be purchased to protect an additional networked Mac, Windows, or Linux server.[/color] Annual Support and Maintenance is included with this product.

 

Retrospect 8 Single Server 20 Clients is designed for small and midsize businesses, branch offices, and departments in large organizations protecting one server. Retrospect Single Server runs on a Mac OS X server and provides licenses to protect up to 20 networked Mac, Windows, and Linux desktops and notebooks. [color:red]A server client license can be purchased to protect an additional networked Mac, Windows, or Linux server.[/color]

Russ

[theboyk]

You will be very, very disappointed in the performance if you install Retrospect 8 on the PPC machine. Retrospect 8 on PPC performs very poorly. One of the reasons is that the design decision was made (probably the right one) for media set exchange between Retrospect Windows and Retrospect 8+ Mac, to store the data in little-endian (Intel) format, which means that the PPC implementation spends a lot of time doing byte swapping.

 

How "poorly" are we talking here? Specifically, vs Retrospect 6 on the same hardware? Here's my problem — Retrospect 6 is dead and unsupported and it's failing us. I've posted the issues we've been having with it, but nothing has helped. I've wiped and reinstalled the server, removed in reinstalled the client software, etc. but nothing helps. I don't need to get into details here, but I have to upgrade/leave Retrospect 6. And, unless you have any suggestions for alternative software (which supports backing up via SCSI to LTO-4 tapes), I'm stuck with Retrospect. And, unfortunately, at this time, I can't upgrade the hardware (as a Mac Pro or Xserve is my only option, and I don't have the budget for it right now). At the end of the day, if Retrospect 8 at least works (as v6 doesn't anymore), then I'd be able to live with a performance hit...

 

Thanks,

Kristin.

[CallMeDave]

How "poorly" are we talking here? Specifically, vs Retrospect 6 on the same hardware?

 

EMC will send you a trial license code for the price of a webform; good for six weeks or more. Regardless of the information you get from other users here you shouldn't for a moment consider deploying something as important as a backup plan without full testing and qualification on your own. Due diligence and all.

 

I'm running the Engine on a little 1.8 Ghz iMac Core Duo (not even Core2) with a measly 1 Gig of ram running OS X Server 10.5. Well below the minimum specs. It works for a small network, backing up exclusively to Disk Media Sets with Members housed on locally attached drives and network shares.

 

I also run Time Machine, CrashPlan and Backup.app.

 

The Retrospect Engine pretty much maxes out the processor when executing a Script, and it's always very, very slow to communicate via the console (on another machine). Obviously I wouldn't ever try and make this work in a support environment, where there are Real Users with Real Needs.

 

You don't (in this thread) describe the CPU or memory of the G5 XServe; if it's one of the DP 2.3GHz with the full 16 Gb of RAM it might work well enough for your needs (proven only by on-site testing). If it's the original single processor 2Ghz with 8 Gb or less of RAM it would probably be a stretch to handle close to 50 clients in whatever time window you have for backups, but again, testing on your hardware is the only way you'll get an accurate answer.

 

Note also that current client speeds have some sort of bottleneck that is supposed to be addressed the the beta of 8.2 that is due this month (May 2010, for archival readers).

[theboyk]

Agreed — no way this would be deployed without fully testing, which I plan to do. But, was hoping there was some knowledge by someone with regards to v6 vs v8 PPC performance, other than just v8 PPC is "slow". What I'm looking for is, is Retrospect 6 FASTER than Retrospect 8 on PPC? Or is Retrospect 8 PPC faster than Retrospect 6, but Retrospect 8 Intel is even faster than Retrospect 8 PPC?

 

I'm going to run these tests myself (well, v6 vs v8 PPC since I can't test v8 Intel right now), but was hoping there was some basic knowledge already...?

 

Thanks,

Kristin.

[rhwalker]

What I'm looking for is, is Retrospect 6 FASTER than Retrospect 8 on PPC?

Yes, I recall by a factor of at least 4 or so. It's hard to make such comparisons in the abstract because it depends on the particular PPC machine being used for the benchmark. I gave up making such comparisons a long time ago because Retrospect 8 couldn't (and still can't) do the job required by our backup policy. Before investing further time in testing (and hopefully, deployment into production), I'm waiting for the big "bug fix" release that is expected later this quarter century.

 

Whether a program "crashes fast" or "crashes slow", it's of no interest to me.

 

Or is Retrospect 8 PPC faster than Retrospect 6, but Retrospect 8 Intel is even faster than Retrospect 8 PPC?

The only situation in which I could see that Retrospect 8 would be even comparable to Retrospect 6 would be on a multiple-processor PPC with a LOT of RAM, and concurrent backup to multiple backup sets. Retrospect 8 can use multiple execution units, and this concurrency, plus the use of expanded RAM, could let it come close to Retrospect 6 (and perhaps, for some configurations, somewhat faster).

 

Again, the problem is that Retrospect 8 spends a lot of time byte-swapping everything for the little-endian (Intel format) backup set (um, media set), plus the fact that the Retrospect 6 code is very mature and optimized, whereas the Retrospect 8 code is still in its infancy.

 

Russ

[theboyk]

Well, I just ran my tests on v8 on PPC and wow, WOW. I mean, I was expecting slow, but that is brutal! I'm talking a worste-case of v8 on PPC being over 20x slower than v6 on the same machine — a 12GB backup from a networked Mac Pro to LTO-4 on a G5 via v8 (PPC) resulted in a transfer speed average of 102 MB/min while v6 doing the same things had average speeds well over 2000 MB/min.

 

Looks like I'll be sticking with v6 in the short term while I find a new backup software package to replace Retrospect.

 

Thanks,

Kristin.

[Maser]

The 8.1 update beta is due out this month (potentially any day now).

 

One of the many bug fixes purported is a speed increase for backing up network clients.

 

That said, no idea if the engine running on a G5 is going to get any faster -- I'd be surprised if it did.

[Daniels]

That is interesting because I am running 8.1.626 on a Dual 867 MHz G4 and getting very good transfer rates. I am not doing any verification and that might be slowing you down. We also have the computer plugged directly into our switch without going through our patch panel. Our network is only 10/100 BaseT.

You might want to also check what else you have running on the machine because the computer I use does not run anything but Retrospect.

[theboyk]

Well, I'm definitely doing verification, but I never even got that far as, after an hour trying to transfer 12GB of data @ 100MB/min, I knew it wasn't worth continuing (as, like I said, via v6, I get over 2000MB/min).

 

Neither machine had anything running (except Retrospect client on the Mac Pro and the Retrospect 8 engine on the G5). The machines are attached to the network via gigabit switches, but that's not the problem.

 

I guess I could reinstall everything and give it another shot. Still not sure if it's worth my time though — might be better spent looking at a new backup software solution...

 

Regards,

Kristin.

[Daniels]

You might want to check the connections between the clients because according to my log Retrospect finished 63.1 GB in 7.5 hours. Even for computers that are connected through two switches I am getting anywhere from 150 to 250 MB/minute transfer rates.

I would suggest try plugging both machines into the switch directly and see what you get for transfer rates.

The other question are all the machines connecting through ethernet cables or do they connect to the network wirelessly?

 

BTW, these numbers are much faster than what I was getting with 6.1 however that was with an older computer.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Guest

[theboyk]

How are you getting 150+ MB/s!? I thought you said your network was only 10/100 BaseT? 10/100 BaseT is only capable to transferring data @ 12.5 MB/s, and that's theoretical, not taking into account any overhead, etc.? I mean, 150 MB/s is the beyond the theoretical limit of gigabit ethernet!?!?!

[Daniels]

My bad it is supposed to be 150 MB/minute and not 150 MB/s

[theboyk]

Yes, that makes more sense. And thus, back to my original point — I'm getting (on average) with v8 on PPC, around 100MB/min — even if I got 250MB/min, that would be awful compared to the 2000+ MB/min I'm getting via v6 on the same machine.

k.