Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
Most firms I'm aware of re-capitalize gear every 3-5 years, in order to avoid paying out-of-warrantee maintenance. === Steven L. Sesar Data Storage Architect UNIX Application Services R101 The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road - MS K101 Bedford, MA 01730 tel: (781) 271-7702 fax: (781) 271-2600 mobile: (617) 519-8933 email: sse...@mitre.org === From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Marelas, Peter Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 5:40 PM To: Ed Wilts; Fred M Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain I don't buy that rational. How often do you think you are going to turn over an appliance? It is more likely you will add to the pool of appliances. I know we have never turned over a VTL and only now we are replacing them with DD's. From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wilts Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 3:46 AM To: Fred M Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Fred M 77fre...@gmail.com wrote: My employer is requesting I evaluate PureDisk and DataDomain for de-duplication. One of the selling advantages of the PureDisk appliances is that you only buy the de-dupe licenses once. All hardware eventually gets old. When that happens, you can buy another PureDisk appliance and re-use your existing de-dupe licenses. You could build your own appliance with off-the-shelf hardware and re-use the licenses. With a DD, when you upgrade the hardware, you're re-buying the software again since the prices are not separate. When you're doing the cost comparisons, factor in not only the initial purchase but also subsequent purchases. I despise per-TB licenses too (as somebody else pointed out), If I had a choice, I wouldn't buy them and would tend to avoid the PureDisk licensing model specifically for this reason. .../Ed smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
And some just go to third party support companies and don't spend capital on backup solutions until they absolutely have to do so. For many organizations backups are deemed unimportant by the powers that be until the day they need to restore something. Having worked for various organizations I can say that some are very proactive in this area and others won't contemplate buying new backup technology until the old stuff dies completely or at least appears ready for imminent collapse. I doubt you know who most firms do it personally. From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Sesar, Steven L. Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:13 PM To: Marelas, Peter; Ed Wilts; Fred M Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain Most firms I'm aware of re-capitalize gear every 3-5 years, in order to avoid paying out-of-warrantee maintenance. === Steven L. Sesar Data Storage Architect UNIX Application Services R101 The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road - MS K101 Bedford, MA 01730 tel: (781) 271-7702 fax: (781) 271-2600 mobile: (617) 519-8933 email: sse...@mitre.org === From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Marelas, Peter Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 5:40 PM To: Ed Wilts; Fred M Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain I don't buy that rational. How often do you think you are going to turn over an appliance? It is more likely you will add to the pool of appliances. I know we have never turned over a VTL and only now we are replacing them with DD's. From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wilts Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 3:46 AM To: Fred M Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Fred M 77fre...@gmail.com wrote: My employer is requesting I evaluate PureDisk and DataDomain for de-duplication. One of the selling advantages of the PureDisk appliances is that you only buy the de-dupe licenses once. All hardware eventually gets old. When that happens, you can buy another PureDisk appliance and re-use your existing de-dupe licenses. You could build your own appliance with off-the-shelf hardware and re-use the licenses. With a DD, when you upgrade the hardware, you're re-buying the software again since the prices are not separate. When you're doing the cost comparisons, factor in not only the initial purchase but also subsequent purchases. I despise per-TB licenses too (as somebody else pointed out), If I had a choice, I wouldn't buy them and would tend to avoid the PureDisk licensing model specifically for this reason. .../Ed Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments. -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you. -- ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
When I looked at these options a couple of years ago a key difference that mattered to us was that the PureDisk appliance was not 'owned' by any NetBackup domain. That meant several domains can use the same appliance, and so e.g. to replicate both ways between 2 DCs a pair of appliances was enough. At the time the DD using OST only allowed 1 Master to use it, so the same setup would mean 4 DD appliances. I am not sure if this has yet changed. If you don’t use OST with the DD that does not apply, but then you have to manage the replicas outside NBU. We also showed that you can import the images written by 1 domain into another, which looked good for DR e.g. we could use an existing Master on a DR site to import replicas directly without having to first recover the primary Master on the DR site. It looks as if NBU 7.1 with AIR can automate this, but it currently only works on MSDP, not with the separate PD appliance. In theory the PD appliance can scale the dedupe pool to a larger size than the DD, as I think DD still max out at 2 heads in a single pool, but I may be wrong on that. Last point, if you need client dedupe e.g. to get a lot of data out of VMs without overloading the physical NIC of the ESX server you need NBU7 client...or EMC Avamar. I have to say we never implemented any of this for NetBackup, and still just use LTO tapes...sigh. William D L Brown This e-mail was sent by GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited (registered in England and Wales No. 1047315), which is a member of the GlaxoSmithKline group of companies. The registered address of GlaxoSmithKline Services Unlimited is 980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex TW8 9GS. ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Fred M 77fre...@gmail.com wrote: My employer is requesting I evaluate PureDisk and DataDomain for de-duplication. One of the selling advantages of the PureDisk appliances is that you only buy the de-dupe licenses once. All hardware eventually gets old. When that happens, you can buy another PureDisk appliance and re-use your existing de-dupe licenses. You could build your own appliance with off-the-shelf hardware and re-use the licenses. With a DD, when you upgrade the hardware, you're re-buying the software again since the prices are not separate. When you're doing the cost comparisons, factor in not only the initial purchase but also subsequent purchases. I despise per-TB licenses too (as somebody else pointed out), If I had a choice, I wouldn't buy them and would tend to avoid the PureDisk licensing model specifically for this reason. .../Ed ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
I'm not a fan of the per-TB licenses either, however my understanding of the NetBackup Deduplication license is that you pay per TB up front instead of on the back end, which means you don't have to pay for the DR copy (or other copies.) I haven't priced this out yet, but it will be interesting to see the 2 x DataDomain versus 1 x NetBackup Deduplication + 2 x DAS comparison. In my case we're considering converting a ton of D2D DAS hardware to this model which means I'm going to need crazy Eddie pricing from EMC to compete with sites that already have storage. Just my $0.02. -Jonathan From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wilts Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 11:46 AM To: Fred M Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Fred M 77fre...@gmail.com wrote: My employer is requesting I evaluate PureDisk and DataDomain for de-duplication. One of the selling advantages of the PureDisk appliances is that you only buy the de-dupe licenses once. All hardware eventually gets old. When that happens, you can buy another PureDisk appliance and re-use your existing de-dupe licenses. You could build your own appliance with off-the-shelf hardware and re-use the licenses. With a DD, when you upgrade the hardware, you're re-buying the software again since the prices are not separate. When you're doing the cost comparisons, factor in not only the initial purchase but also subsequent purchases. I despise per-TB licenses too (as somebody else pointed out), If I had a choice, I wouldn't buy them and would tend to avoid the PureDisk licensing model specifically for this reason. .../Ed ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
I don't buy that rational. How often do you think you are going to turn over an appliance? It is more likely you will add to the pool of appliances. I know we have never turned over a VTL and only now we are replacing them with DD's. From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Ed Wilts Sent: Wednesday, 16 February 2011 3:46 AM To: Fred M Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Fred M 77fre...@gmail.commailto:77fre...@gmail.com wrote: My employer is requesting I evaluate PureDisk and DataDomain for de-duplication. One of the selling advantages of the PureDisk appliances is that you only buy the de-dupe licenses once. All hardware eventually gets old. When that happens, you can buy another PureDisk appliance and re-use your existing de-dupe licenses. You could build your own appliance with off-the-shelf hardware and re-use the licenses. With a DD, when you upgrade the hardware, you're re-buying the software again since the prices are not separate. When you're doing the cost comparisons, factor in not only the initial purchase but also subsequent purchases. I despise per-TB licenses too (as somebody else pointed out), If I had a choice, I wouldn't buy them and would tend to avoid the PureDisk licensing model specifically for this reason. .../Ed ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
Hi Mark, You were right to explore lower cost alternative solutions for your deduplication needs. As a long-time Data Domain customer you have firsthand experience on how expensive those solutions can be. It is unfortunate however that at the time you were evaluating a newer, lower cost dedupe solution, you were unable to see and experience the full potential of the “end-to-end deduplication” capabilities currently available with NetBackup 7 and our new line of NetBackup 5000 deduplication appliances. The resulting power of our approach gives you the choice and flexibility to deploy deduplication at the source, at the media server, and a simple, easy to deploy, and yet highly scalable target global deduplication appliance as well. Symantec NetBackup 7 Deduplication allows you to simultaneously deploy and configure both source and target based dedupe with-in the same infrastructure and with-out incurring exorbitant costs or deploying incompatible solutions. This is simply not possible with an EMC deduplication solution. You must choose between two incompatible solutions, Data Domain and Avamar, both of which can be 2x-5x more expensive than the Symantec Deduplication solution. NetBackup 7 has deduplication built right in. It is easily configured at the source or at the media server with just a backup policy settings. Simply turn it on and you will quickly see the significant performance gains from reducing network loads and reduced backup time in either virtual or physical environments. The Symantec 5000 line of deduplication appliances can also make your life very simple.As you mentioned earlier, you needed to figure out which Data Domain appliances you needed, most likely the minimum to keep the costs down. In each case, once they are full, you will need to EOL those units and buy larger, more expensive units as they are incompatible and cannot be connected to create a larger global deduplication pool. Pretty expensive. The new NetBackup 5000 appliances can be individually added (mix/match) and scaled to meet the needs of just about any enterprise data center. The beauty of this approach is the ability to add more and larger appliances to your global pool as they become available to create even larger global pools as your data continues to grow. Again, tough to do with either Data Domain or Avamar. With the rapidly evolving changes in IT infrastructures, the ability to easily select a dedupe configuration that best fits your needs today while letting you tune it for maximum performance, whether virtual or physical, and then be able to easily change it without throwing any of it away, I think would be of tremendous value to you and your organization. We would hope that when your Data Domain is reaching its EOL, you would give Symantec the opportunity to demonstrate the power of its complete deduplication solution, and show you how we can help you to better manage your storage dollars. Thanks! Pat McDonald Principal Systems Engineer Symantec Corporation From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Glazerman Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 7:18 AM To: Fred M Cc: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain We use both here and have been for over 4 years. We use Data Domain for all of our data center backups and Puredisk (the original appliance based version) for all of our remote file server backups. We did look into Netbackup 7’s built in dedupe which uses the puredisk dedupe engine to allow both client side and media server dedupe of backups to any disk storage backends but just couldn’t get the compression we get out of the data domain appliances. As an example, our data domains currently house approximately 35 copies of our exchange backups (700GB during a full backup) in 3.8TB of raw. We presented the same amount of storage from a dell equallogic storage array to a netbackup dedupe pool and we couldn’t fit 4 copies of that same exchange data. We’ve done countless reference calls for Data Domain detailing our consideration of Netbackups built in dedupe and our findings. The biggest problem is the Netbackup Puredisk dedupe uses a fixed block algorithm where as the Data Domain’s use a variable block algorithm. This allows the Data Domain appliances to generate much greater compression. The backup performance was comparable across both solutions but just like we’ve seen with our appliance based puredisk environment, restores from the Data Domain’s were MUCH faster than from the puredisk storage. Netbackup 7 has improved the restore speeds but it’s still not comparable to the 100GB /hour restore speeds we get (simultaneously across multiple platforms / applications) at our
Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
We are currently using PureDisk and NBU 5000 as well as DataDomain in our many far-flung backup environments. Each one has its place. One thing to remember that with the NBU7 deduplication or the NBU5000. You need an additional per-TB deduplication option license for each TB of data that is being protected, not the amount of disk space that is actually configured. That license can be pretty pricey. Personally, I'm opposed to per-TB or tiered licensing in general. I can see needing a license to enable the deduplication capabilities in NBU, but not one to use an appliance we already paid for. In a previous job, I gave our Symantec reps a hard time about having to pay a per-TB license for our VTLs asking them what value that license provided us when the real value came from the VTL we purchased. It all seems like a money grab on Symantec's part. Sorry about getting off on a rant there...that's a hot-button topic for me. So far, we are quite happy with the deduplication provided by NBU7 and Puredisk. Setup of the NBU5000 is a piece of cake. I'll agree with a previous poster and say that the DataDomains give us better overall deduplication and throughput. My overall impressions so far is that the DataDomain is more enterprise oriented while PureDisk and NBU5000 aren't quite at that point yet. -- Jack Forester, Jr. Sr. Data Protection Administrator Global Technology Services - AHS Mylan, Inc. 5005 Greenbag Road Morgantown, WV 26501 jack.fores...@mylan.com Phone: +1.304.554.6039 Cell: +1.412.805.5313 From: Pat McDonald pat_mcdon...@symantec.com To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Cc: Pat McDonald pat_mcdon...@symantec.com Date: 02/14/2011 10:52 AM Subject:Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain Sent by:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Hi Mark, You were right to explore lower cost alternative solutions for your deduplication needs. As a long-time Data Domain customer you have firsthand experience on how expensive those solutions can be. It is unfortunate however that at the time you were evaluating a newer, lower cost dedupe solution, you were unable to see and experience the full potential of the “end-to-end deduplication” capabilities currently available with NetBackup 7 and our new line of NetBackup 5000 deduplication appliances. The resulting power of our approach gives you the choice and flexibility to deploy deduplication at the source, at the media server, and a simple, easy to deploy, and yet highly scalable target global deduplication appliance as well. Symantec NetBackup 7 Deduplication allows you to simultaneously deploy and configure both source and target based dedupe with-in the same infrastructure and with-out incurring exorbitant costs or deploying incompatible solutions. This is simply not possible with an EMC deduplication solution. You must choose between two incompatible solutions, Data Domain and Avamar, both of which can be 2x-5x more expensive than the Symantec Deduplication solution. NetBackup 7 has deduplication built right in. It is easily configured at the source or at the media server with just a backup policy settings. Simply turn it on and you will quickly see the significant performance gains from reducing network loads and reduced backup time in either virtual or physical environments. The Symantec 5000 line of deduplication appliances can also make your life very simple.As you mentioned earlier, you needed to figure out which Data Domain appliances you needed, most likely the minimum to keep the costs down. In each case, once they are full, you will need to EOL those units and buy larger, more expensive units as they are incompatible and cannot be connected to create a larger global deduplication pool. Pretty expensive. The new NetBackup 5000 appliances can be individually added (mix/match) and scaled to meet the needs of just about any enterprise data center. The beauty of this approach is the ability to add more and larger appliances to your global pool as they become available to create even larger global pools as your data continues to grow. Again, tough to do with either Data Domain or Avamar. With the rapidly evolving changes in IT infrastructures, the ability to easily select a dedupe configuration that best fits your needs today while letting you tune it for maximum performance, whether virtual or physical, and then be able to easily change it without throwing any of it away, I think would be of tremendous value to you and your organization. We would hope that when your Data Domain is reaching its EOL, you would give Symantec the opportunity to demonstrate the power of its complete deduplication solution, and show you how we can help you to better manage your storage dollars. Thanks! Pat McDonald Principal Systems Engineer Symantec Corporation From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [ mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Mark
Re: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain
We use both here and have been for over 4 years. We use Data Domain for all of our data center backups and Puredisk (the original appliance based version) for all of our remote file server backups. We did look into Netbackup 7's built in dedupe which uses the puredisk dedupe engine to allow both client side and media server dedupe of backups to any disk storage backends but just couldn't get the compression we get out of the data domain appliances. As an example, our data domains currently house approximately 35 copies of our exchange backups (700GB during a full backup) in 3.8TB of raw. We presented the same amount of storage from a dell equallogic storage array to a netbackup dedupe pool and we couldn't fit 4 copies of that same exchange data. We've done countless reference calls for Data Domain detailing our consideration of Netbackups built in dedupe and our findings. The biggest problem is the Netbackup Puredisk dedupe uses a fixed block algorithm where as the Data Domain's use a variable block algorithm. This allows the Data Domain appliances to generate much greater compression. The backup performance was comparable across both solutions but just like we've seen with our appliance based puredisk environment, restores from the Data Domain's were MUCH faster than from the puredisk storage. Netbackup 7 has improved the restore speeds but it's still not comparable to the 100GB /hour restore speeds we get (simultaneously across multiple platforms / applications) at our Disaster recovery exercises. In our production puredisk environment, if we need to restore a 100GB file server to ship out to a plant it can take up to 10-12 hours to restore. If you have a HUGE pool of money to spend on back end disk then Netbackup 7's built in dedupe may still be an option for you. However, we'd have needed to purchase more than 10X the raw disk capacity of our data domain appliances in order to be able to house the same amount of deduped data that our Data Domain's currently store. As existing Data Domain customers, this was not financially viable and even the lure of a one stop shop for all backup storage was not big enough for us to jump ship after 4+ years as Data Domain users. We started off with two dd430's and later added two dd560's. Now have two DD670's setup in a replication pair and use Storage Lifecycle Policies (SLP's) inside Netbackup coupled with the optional Open Storage (OST) plugin to manage all but a handful of backup policies. The OST plugin lets us make use of the Optimized duplication technology to reduce bandwidth utilization between our main data center and our DR site and the tighter integration with Netbackup gives us additional visibility of both our primary and now also our duplicated images from inside the catalog. Yes... I'm a Data Domain fan but that's not because I'm getting paid to say this stuff. It's because it works flawlessly, has got us out of some real binds and makes my boss look like a rockstar at our twice yearly DR tests. If we'd seen similar numbers from Netbackup then I'd be singing a different tune but for now, Data Domain has my vote. Mark Glazerman Desk: 314-889-8282 Cell: 618-520-3401 P please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to From: veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Fred M Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:14 PM To: veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu Subject: [Veritas-bu] PureDisk vs. DataDomain Hi all, My employer is requesting I evaluate PureDisk and DataDomain for de-duplication. While I can setup a demo of each and get the numbers, and ask the sales guys what makes them great and why their competitors aren't, I can't trust that is nothing more than sales drivel. So, I ask you expert users. Can anyone tell me what their experiences are with DataDomain and PureDisk and why you went with that solution from a technical perspective? You know, the typical pro/con deal. Thanks for the help! ~~Fred~~ ___ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
