Curtis - Although I agree with the other responses you have given out
with respect to the tape vs. disk cost I am not sure about your statements
below.
Going back for a second to the cost of tape vs. disk... if you do an analysis
make sure to take all things into account when you backup to tape. This is why
most people don't get a proper cost associated with tape backup i.e:
1. SAN ports
2. Tape drives -> fixing them, lost time, shoe-shining
3. media cost -> fixing media, media failure cost(cost of not being able to
do a restore)
4. off siting -> the cycles/dollars lost in handling that internally, the
cost of dealing with Recall/Iron Mountain (or whoever), the cost associated
with the delay in waiting for a tape to be recalled...
5. library maintenance cost
6. restore duration cost (i.e. if i have 100 people waiting for a Tier 1
server to be restored...)
Anyways the list of "invisible costs" associated with tapes go on...
As for your EMC CDL comments... First I believe they are now called EDL (EMC
Disk Libraries) because they take into account their new Symmetrix backend
devices. Although I agree with you that de-dup is important to the future of
backups you make it seem that it should be the only deciding factor in a
purchase! If you push de-dup aside for a second what do most customers want? My
guess is performance, availability, stability, integration with backup
application. This has been my thought process and these de-dup companies you
speak about such as Sepaton, Diligent, Data Domain all at one point or another
have HUGE performance hits (i.e. we have tape drives that go faster then some
of these), little capability to scale (without combining multiple devices
together), or have un-explainable single points of failures.
I also agree that replication is important and if you can minimize the amount
you replicate then great. Here is my dilemma: Most of the de-dup vendors out
there (i.e. I am thinking of Sepaton) that can perform de-dup have only been
in the replication business for a year (probably less) and have very little
maturity in that space! That scares me a bit...
As for backup integration I personally like the fact that with EMC I can have
a built in media server on top of my VTL and control everything from what I am
familiar with... no other vendor offers that!
Anyways just my two cents... Bottom line is that I agree that de-dup is
important but if you can push that aside and look at the other technical merit
(assuming that all vendors will have de-dup sooner than later) suddenly the
list of enterprise level candidates drops significantly from what I am seeing.
-Nicholas
---------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis Preston
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Kevin Whittaker; Jeff Lightner; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Tapeless backup environments?
The only issue there is that the EMC CDL does not support de-duplication, and
it doesnt look like theyll be doing it any time soon. I know theyre working
on it, but they havent announced anything public, so who knows. Compare that
to the other de-dupe vendors that announced probably a year before they were
ready, and youve got some sense of my opinion of when EMC de-dupe will
actually be GA if not later.
Your design would work great if you had de-dupe. Without de-dupe, you are
going to be replicated 20 times more data (or more), requiring a significantly
larger pipe.
---
W. Curtis Preston
Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com
VP Data Protection, GlassHouse Technologies
---------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Whittaker
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 7:48 AM
To: Jeff Lightner; veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] Tapeless backup environments?
We have it on our plan. We will be using tape for only long term retention
of data.
Our plan is to purchase another EMC CDL, and mirror our existing EMC CDL to
the EMC CDL at our DR site. Our master server already is duplicated, and this
will allow us to start restores of stuff that is not tier 1 applications that
already are mirrored to the DR site.
I would prefer not to save the long term on tape, but we don't have a
solution for any other way to do it at this time.
Kevin
---------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Lightner
Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 9:44 AM
To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: [Veritas-bu] Tapeless backup environments?
Yesterday our director said that he doesnt intend to ever upgrade existing
STK L700 because eventually well go tapeless as that is what the industry is
doing. The idea being wed have our disk backup devices here (e.g. Data
Domain) and transfer to offsite storage to another disk device so as to
eliminate the need for ever transporting tapes.
It made me wonder if anyone was actually doing the above already or was
planning to do so?
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
