![]() ![]() No, disks are superiour to me, tapes always cause me problems. ![]() dedup only pays of if the data can actually be deduped, otherwise you’re just wasting lots of money. ![]() We will still have some tapes, for archives and similar purposes, these unique data do take up space on dedup devices with little advantages. It will also help with backup of our remote offices, which are still on tape only and have to be managed by local people, so there’s always something going wrong there. less disks, less floorspace, less power/cooling, etc are needed and we can keep almost everything on disk instead of tape. ofcourse, our environment kept growing and growing, and we’re now at a point where the d2d part is so big it’s ridiculous, so we’re looking at dedup to keep the whole disk part under control. We then moved to a d2d2t mechanism and this has eased the management of the backup environment to unmeasurable hights. Never again! it was a nightmare, both in managing the backup as well as the restore aspect. I can remember the days when we did direct-to-tape backups. These posts reflect my own opinion and are not necessarily the opinion of my employer. I am now Chief Technical Evangelist at Druva, the leading provider of cloud-based data protection and data management tools for endpoints, infrastructure, and cloud applications. I've written the O'Reilly books on backup and have worked with a number of native and commercial tools. Curtis Preston For those of you unfamiliar with my work, I've specialized in backup & recovery since 1993. Would I rather have my backups on disk rather than tape if I had to do a lot of restores? Definitely.īut is it cheaper? I don’t think so. Does it enable onsite and offsite backups without touching tape? You bethcha. Is the deduped disk unit easier to use? Absolutely. I recently saw a price comparison between a tape unit and a deduped unit where the tape unit was about $6,000 and the equivalent disk unit was $200,000. Deduped disk has gotten so hot that some companies are charging way too much for it. That bandwidth isn’t free.īut that actually wasn’t what I was going to be writing here. And if you’re going to be replicating your backups, you may need bandwidth you never needed before. So if you’re not getting rid of your tape, and instead buying one (or more) additional appliance(s), each of which is going to cost far more in power and cooling than the tape system you’re not getting rid of of, and neither of which is completely self-managing, how is it that you’re saving money again? You’re tripling the size of your infrastructure, and 2/3 of that tripling is going to be disk that is more expensive than what you already had. This means that almost everyone is still keeping at least some of their tape drives. They find it impossible to meet the long term storage requirements of backups and archives, and - much worse - legal hold requirements, without being able to make a pile of tapes and set them on a shelf somewhere. While some companies absolutely have, some customers that have tried have stopped trying. The big reason this is true is that almost no one is getting rid of their tape drives. I’m absolutely convinced that tape is still cheaper, for a lot of reasons. ![]() I know that many dedupe salespeople try to tell customers that they’re going to save money by moving from tape to their wonderful deduped disk system I just don’t see how that is possible. I’ve often stated that tape is still cheaper than disk, even after dedupe. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |