>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 13:40:34 -0600, Kelly Lipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I'd like to steer this around a bit. Our sales folks are saying > they are losing TSM opportunities to de-dup vendors. What specific > business problem are customers trying to solve with de-dup? > I'm thinking the following: > 1. Reduce the amount of disk/tape required to storage backups. > Especially important for all an all disk backup solution. which I love. "We don't need tape, because disk is cheap!" [...hiatus...] "We have to save disk! Buy (and integrate, and manage) a new product!" > 2. Reduce backup times (for source de-dup I would think. No benefit in > target de-dup for this). > 3. Replication of backup data across a wide area network. Obviously if > you have less stored you have less to replicate. > Others? Relative importance of these? > Does TSM in and of itself provide similar benefits in its natural > state? From this discussion adding de-dup at the backend does not > necessarily provide much though it does for the other traditional > backup products. Since we don't dup, we don't need to de-dup. I think a back-end de-dup (de do da da) would still offer advantages to TSM: if you've got mumblety-hundred (e.g.) Win2K boxen, then most of their system and app space would be identical. This could, concievably, end up as close to one system-images' worth of space on the back end. In a fantasy. :) However, the server would need to do an awful lot of work to correlate all these data. - Allen S. Rout
