Symantec Backup Exec remote agents

mipouk

Guys,

At my current workplace, we have a server that deals with all the backups of remote servers. When I asked our sys admin guy whether he could show me how to configure / install a backup exec remote agent some time, he said we dont use them as the cost of all the licenses is expensive so he just backs up by typing in the relevant UNC paths.

Are there any benefits or reasons to use a remote agent over backing up using the UNC path of the files and folders?

hypnotoad

Using the agent is supposed to be quicker -- it will compress the data before it sends it over the wire, and it will send using some Network Backup Protocol that i can't remember the official name of now, instead of SMB-style protocols.

The agent also gives options for backing up exchange, sql server, and provides access to the advanced file option, which will backup files that are locked by another user.

tiersten

hypnotoad wrote:

Using the agent is supposed to be quicker -- it will compress the data before it sends it over the wire, and it will send using some Network Backup Protocol that i can't remember the official name of now, instead of SMB-style protocols.

NDMP

It does increase the cost quite a bit but the benefits are well worth it IMO.

astorrs

Without using the backup agents you will not be able to restore the entire system, only rebuild the machine from scratch and then restore the files you backed up (you'll be forced to reinstall all the apps, recreate all the shares/permissions, etc). The agent allows you to backup the System State (which you will notice is grayed out in the selection list if the agent isn't installed) and that contains the registry and other critical Windows components.

I would encourage you to do a complete recovery of one of your more complex servers so you have an idea how much work is required (to a test environment - don't destroy your production server ) and then evaluate the cost of the agents.

royal

I agree with astors. The agents are worth the money. So many organizations are "after the fact" and it takes a disaster to set them straight. The unfortunate thing is, if they were proactive before disaster struck, money probably would have been saved preventing the disaster. But to many companies, they need the disaster to happen due to negligence and having the disaster hit will provide them with the figures so they will spend more money on IT to prevent these disasters from occurring "again" in the future. IT systems are so critical these days to ensure the smooth operations of business, it's ridiculous to not spend money on agents to ensure you have a good backup of your data and you can have a better restore plan.