Author: Brett Monroe <mr.bmonroe AT GMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 08:47:05 -0700
Hey all, We are currently in the planning phase of dramatically transforming out data center's backup environment from the stone age (direct-attach tape drives on all servers doing fulls every night)
Author: Graeme Parker <graeme.parker AT GMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 10:31:38 -0600
Hi Brett, We currently have approx 40TB worth of Data Domain in our envrionment based on 460's, 560's, and 510s. They work great and generally see an average of 10x compression. If you are backing up
Author: Stuart Whitby <swhitby AT DATAPROTECTORS.CO DOT UK>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 08:47:05 -0500
I wouldn't bother with a dedup device for two main reasons. Firstly, these will quickly be made redundant with Avamar integration with NetWorker. I can't be sure, but I doubt that this will even be a
Author: Brett Monroe <mr.bmonroe AT GMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 07:50:28 -0700
Graeme, I forgot to include the Networker list in my corespondents...perhaps other readers could find value in our discussion. I am also seriously looking at Diligent (as well as DDs VTL option). The
Author: Brett Monroe <mr.bmonroe AT GMAIL DOT COM>
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2007 08:13:01 -0700
John, Thanks for the great read. One of the reasons I like Diligent (on paper anyway) is that I can roll my own as they say. With DD, I only have their hardware options. With Diligent, I can build a
Author: Curtis Preston <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 23:34:23 -0500
with >NetWorker. Not so fast, hoss. ;) Those two categories of products are designed with completely different datasets in mind. Avamar (and its competitors) are designed primarily to back up remote
Author: Curtis Preston <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 23:37:23 -0500
Some of the products are more mature than others. We keep a directory of disk targets on backupcentral.com: http://tinyurl.com/2dtvh2 As I said in another post, the disk target products are meant pri
Author: Stuart Whitby <swhitby AT DATAPROTECTORS.CO DOT UK>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:41:19 -0500
Processing power to utilise Avamar is up to the server administrators. Given the choice of spending cash on a dedup device vs spending it on extra processing power for a server, I'd generally go for
Author: Peter Viertel <Peter.Viertel AT MACQUARIE DOT COM>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:30:12 +1100
Veritas also paid real money to buy DCT in 2005... That's where puredisk came from, they're not giving it away either. Today it's still a standalone install and licensed based on the total size of yo
Author: Mathew Harvest <Mathew.HARVEST AT SIS.QLD.GOV DOT AU>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 10:02:41 +1000
I was talking to some of our local EMC reps last week and I believe that EMC have changed their licensing model for Avamar, and now licence on the amount of disk that stores the de-duped data. They a
Author: Curtis Preston <cpreston AT GLASSHOUSE DOT COM>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 22:22:10 -0500
It wouldn't be the first time a salesperson was wrong on how the product is licensed. Trust me. They're charging for it. -- W. Curtis Preston Backup Blog @ www.backupcentral.com VP Data Protection, G