Another group has been looking at CommVault and it's looking like we will be 
transitioning to it by end of 4th quarter. 

> On Jul 28, 2014, at 18:12, "xyz" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Ditto from Dana on keeping this DPM conversation going.
> I am under big pressure from my CIO to convert to DPM to cut backup costs - 
> as it is covered under our current ALA.
> One of our VARs is really pushing DPM.  I have worked with them for several 
> years and they do a very good job for me on all things MS related.
> I am keeping an open mind, but there are caveats that require deep digging 
> depending on your environment and expectations.
>  
> Quick comments based on my site experience FWIW and just starting to look at 
> DPM in detail.
> If interested, read on.
> We have used COMMVAULT for many years, including EXCHANGE backups.
> Keep in mind that many other vendors offer excellent support – I am just 
> commenting on CV.
> There is a yearly cost for this product, but has been well worth it to me, as 
> we have had to do some strange recoveries (including EXCHANGE data) from time 
> to time, and never lost any data within our recovery window.
> We monitor backup logs closely, and anytime we have an error or issue CV 
> support jumped on this and resolved/adjusted our configurations.
> We have a disk storage array system dedicated to our backups and were running 
> out of space. For my specific site, the cost of upgrading the storage array 
> was significant, so we installed CV DEDUPE and now have enough space to meet 
> our recovery window.  We found about an 80% or more backup storage space 
> savings so did not need to do an expensive upgrade to our backup storage 
> array hardware.
> Again, most mainline backup vendors have this option as well.
> Reviewing these numbers with our MS VAR, I was told that DPM may not be as 
> DEDUPE efficient, we likely need upgrade our storage array, but this would be 
> a cost savings over the longer term since we would not need to pay our yearly 
> CV support maintenance.
> I am not to the point of running the numbers yet, but it is tough to factor 
> in the variable of quality product support, and for backup/restore I don’t 
> want any issues.
> At my site, no one is concerned about cost cutting until after the fact when 
> there is an issue.
> Again, I am keeping an open mind, but backup/restore is critical at my site.
> Just my quick thoughts and hoping others looking into DPM may have comments.
>  
> Thank you
> Dana
>  
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf Of David McSpadden
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:03 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Exchange] DAG & DPM
>  
> I would like to follow this convo as well.
> I continue to get DPM errors but no real reason that I can figure?
>  
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf Of Daniel Chenault
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 3:55 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Exchange] DAG & DPM
>  
> I inherited this setup and am just trying to make heads or tails of the 
> continuing problems (mostly "replica out of sync").
> 
> How does DPM handle the log files in a DAG? Does it only backup the active DB 
> and... then what? I've read two books thus far on DPM and Exchange and 
> neither went into the actual workings under the hood; mostly screen shots of 
> how to set this or that up. 
> 
> Had a situation where a backup kept failing for no good reason I could see. 
> Had to failover the DB to it's partner (unrelated) and all of a sudden the 
> logs cleared.
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are property of Indiana Members 
> Credit Union, are confidential, and are intended solely for the use of the 
> individual or entity to whom this e-mail is addressed. If you are not one of 
> the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have 
> received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete this 
> message immediately from your computer. Any other use, retention, 
> dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly 
> prohibited.
> 
>  
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Reply via email to