That sounds good except the pricing part. Monte, I don't know enough about it yet to have specific questions
Michael 2009/4/24 Tristan Ball <tristan.b...@leica-microsystems.com> > I’d second both of these points, but especially the pricing one. When we > looked at it, pricing was based on the volume of data pre-deduplication, and > bought in blocks of n Gigabytes or Terabytes. > > > > I had two big issues with that > > > > 1) From a business point of view the one of the big value point of > dedupe is to reduce the storage/transfer costs of backup. But their pricing > model means that rather than spending that money on infrastructure (local > tape, faster links, whatever), we pay that money to veritas/symantec. OK, > fine, it’s probably less money over all, but even so to me it means that > Symantec is getting the lions share of that value from the software, not me. > I actually think this will change somewhat as dedupe becomes commodity. > > 2) Volume based pricing often stings you 2 or 3 years in. Sure, > right now paying $n to backup x TB might seem cost reasonable, but the > midrange/highend vendors never seem to drop their $n per x ratio at the same > rate as the rest of the industry – so in two years time, you may find > yourself justifying quite high cost per gig upgrade, just because you added > 3 remote sites, and suddenly have to buy another data block. And you no > longer have the bargaining position of being a new customer. Which leads me > back to my first point – why am I buying another data block when 50-80% of > that data is going to be de-dupped from other sites anyway? > > > > > > Had their pricing been the same per tb, but based on the de-duped data > size, not the pre-de-duple, we probably would have signed up. > > > > Regards, > > T. > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto: > veritas-bu-boun...@mailman.eng.auburn.edu] *On Behalf Of *Ed Wilts > *Sent:* Friday, 24 April 2009 2:26 AM > *To:* Michael Graff Andersen > *Cc:* veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu > *Subject:* Re: [Veritas-bu] Puredisk experiences ? > > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Michael Graff Andersen <mia...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > We are considering Puredisk for our remote offices and would like to hear > other users experiences with it > > > PureDisk is great for backups but you have to have a serious look at your > restore requirements. For example, if you have a double-disk failure in a > RAID5 set at a local office and lose a large raidset, you could be restoring > by shipping disk drives rather than a network-based restore. > > For a restore of a word processing document or spreadsheet, PureDisk is > fantastic. If you anticipate restores of a user's 10GB PST file, this could > become painful. > > > That said, we really like PureDisk technically. We still don't like the > price... > > .../Ed > > Ed Wilts, RHCE, BCFP, BCSD, SCSP, SCSE > ewi...@ewilts.org > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Veritas-bu maillist - Veritas-bu@mailman.eng.auburn.edu http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu
