commvault.com commvault.com
Question

NAS/Network Share Client for CIFS Shares

  • 16 March 2023
  • 7 replies
  • 97 views
P
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +5

I have some CIFS Shares on a NAS that I want to backup and I currently do this by using a subclient on a Windows File iDA that simply connects to the UNC path.

I’m replacing the box that the existing subclient sits on so I need to re-create it and I have two options.

  • Same as before but use a new File iDA.
  • Add a NAS/Network Share client and use the new Windows File iDA as a data access node.

The end result is my UNC path is backed up so I’m not entirely clear what the difference is between the two methods and why I might choose one over the other?

7 replies

chrisknows
Rank
Userlevel 3
Badge +10

I honestly think this is a question for your Tam, different licensing agreements have different caveats.

So your tam should be able to answer the question Re: Licensing

The poster formerly known as @christopherlecky
P
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +5

Does anyone have any more thoughts on this please?

Particularly around the license requirements piece as I’m not 100% clear if the NAS client consumes an additional FS iDA license or if it’s just the backend “proxy” that needs the FS iDA?

P
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +5

Ah that makes sense 👍🏻

So the downside is a potential extra license.

The upside is the NAS “object” helps abstract the client from the proxy so future changes might be less painful.

 

Any other pros or cons?

chrisknows
Rank
Userlevel 3
Badge +10

The proxy doesn’t need to have the ida licence active.

The poster formerly known as @christopherlecky
P
Rank
Userlevel 1
Badge +5

Thanks Christopher this is just a dumb CIFS backup so I don’t think intellisnap comes into for what we need it but otherwise I understood it to be exactly as you said it in so much as doing it this way seems to be a bit more future proof.

Downside looks to be that the NAS client uses an extra iDA license even if the Windows proxy already has an iDA assigned to it, unless I’m missing something?

christopherlecky
Rank
Userlevel 5
Badge +16

I suspect the biggest differences are that with the psuedoclient you specify proxies and enable intellisnap.

These are pretty big differences in that you can specify multiple proxies and thus split up the load. You can even specify a group that contains proxies and therefore if you ever need additional processing power you can add or remove proxies at will so you will never have to do the exact thing you are now doing. If you need to upgrade the box doing the boxes its not bound to a specific client and the ability to do intellisnap speaks for itself.

also you can hang ddbs off the proxy which I would assume is much more robust that standard client dedupe signature generation.

I blame auto-correct for all misspellings, grammatical errors, and half-baked opinions.
chrisknows
Rank
Userlevel 3
Badge +10

deferring to my alt account: @christopherlecky 

The poster formerly known as @christopherlecky

Reply


Terms & ConditionsCookie settings