FINDINGS:COMPETITOR "V FAILED TO PERFORM A RESTORE AT 24
CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS.
NETBACKUP PERFORMED A RESTORE OF 24 CONCURRENT APPLICATIONS IN
56 MINUTES.
RESULTS FOR: CONCURRENT RESTORE
RESULTS FOR: APPLICATION CONSISTENT SNAPSHOTS
RESULTS FOR: ARRAY-BASED SNAPSHOTS
FINDINGS:NETBACKUP REQUIRES LESS THAN 9 MINUTES TOBACK UP 1,000
VMS USING ARRAY-BASED SNAPSHOTS.
COMPETITOR V REQUIRES TWICE THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE
SAME ARRAY-BASED SNAPSHOT.
00:0
8
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
5
24
9
18
56
8
100 VMs 200 VMs 500 VMs 1,000 VMs
Snapshots can be used to create quicker Recovery Time Objectives
(RTOs) and more aggressive Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs). When
testing crash consistent backups, NetBackups snapshot technology
backed up 1,000 virtual machines in less than 9 minutes while
Competitor V required over 18 minutes.
NetBackup
Competitor V
TOTA
L TI
ME
TO
CO
MPL
ETE
BA
CKU
P (M
inut
es)
420
1086
18
16
14
12
1,000VMs
1X 2X
18
FOR ARRAY-BASED SNAPSHOTSSPEED TEST
(Min
utes
)
8
FINDINGS:COMPETITOR V FAILED TO PERFORM APPLICATION CONSISTENT
BACKUPS WHEN THE ENVIRONMENT GREW TO OVER 300 VMS.
NETBACKUP WAS ABLE TO PROTECT 1,000 VMS USING AN APPLICATION
CONSISTENT SNAPSHOT IN 38 MINUTES.
70
63
56
35
42
28
14
7
21
0
8 7
22
3737
19
57
1 APP 8 APPs 16 APPs 24 APPs
NetBackup and Competitor V delivered comparable performance for
concurrent restores at every concurrent recovery level with the
exception of the last one.
NetBackup
Competitor V
TIM
E T
O C
OM
PLE
TE C
ON
CU
RR
EN
T R
ES
TOR
ES
(Min
utes
)
Failu
re to
Res
tore
0
1:0
0
0:4
5
0:3
0
0:1
5
2:0
0
1:4
5
1:3
0
1:1
5
3:1
5
3:0
0
2:4
5
2:3
0
2:1
5
1,000VMs
FOR APPLICATION CONSISTENT SNAPSHOTSSPEED TEST
(Min
utes
)
38
Failure to Backup
NetBackup Competitor V
RESULTS FOR:HYPERVISOR-LEVEL BACKUP
9:00
7:00
5:00
3:00
1:00 0:25
2:33
0:431:11
2:51
5:09
8:44NetBackup
Competitor V
5:53
100 VMs 200 VMs 400 VMs 1,000 VMs
Zoom & Rotate
Lower times are better when it comes to backup windows.
NetBackup saves you hours, especially in large-scale environments.
As the environment scaled from 100 to 200, 400 and then 1,000
virtual machines, there were dramatic increases in the time
required by Competitor "V" to perform the backups.
TOTA
L TI
ME
TO
CO
MPL
ETE
BA
CKU
P (H
ours
:Min
utes
)
FINDINGS:NETBACKUP IS OVER 5 HOURS FASTER THANCOMPETITOR V WHEN
BACKING UP 1,000 VMS
9:0
0
7:0
0
5:0
0
3:0
0
1:0
0
1,000VMs
1X 2X 3X
2:51
8:44
FOR HYPERVISOR-LEVEL BACKUP SPEED TEST
(Hou
rs:M
inut
es)
Principled Technologies benchmark resultsshow that in a growing
enterprise datacenter using VMware, NetBackup will
scalesignificantly better than Competitor V.
NetBackupCompetitor V
RESULTS
HYPERVISOR-LEVEL BACKUP & REC
OVERY
ARRAY-BASED SNAPSHOTS
CONCURRENT RESTORES
BACKUP & RECOVERYSCALABILITY BENCHMARK
SCALE IN A VIRTUAL WORLD
NetBackup IS THE MOSTSCALABLE BACKUP &
RECOVERY SOLUTION
0
4
8
16
20
12
18
8
NetBackup
FASTER2X
0
2 4
6
810
1416
18
2022
12
2:51
8:
44
NetBackup
FASTER3X
Want More Details on How Competitor VFared Against
NetBackup?
RESULTS
VMware Virtual Machines
Competitor VNetBackup
T E S T S P E R F O R M E D B YAn industry leader and expert in
technology benchmark testingALL TESTS BASED ON: Enterprise Backup
and Recovery Solutions Scaling from 100 to 1,000 VMware VMs
Real-world Situations and Workloads
WHAT IS THE MOSTSCALABLE SOLUTION?
NetBackup COMPETITOR V
PrincipledTechnologies
VIRTUAL MACHINE GROWTHDATA GROWTH
=XLARGESCALEPROBLEM
Part# 21356890
2015 Veritas Technologies Corporation. All rights reserved.
Veritas and the Veritas Logo are trademarks or registered
trademarks of Veritas Technologies Corporation or its affiliates in
the U.S. And other countries. Other names may be trademarks of
their respective owners.
Updated 08/15
Download the Full Report Now
go.veritas.com/nbu-vs-v
go.veritas.com/nbu-vs-v
