ADSM-L

Re: Is network backup still a good idea?

1998-10-21 17:47:06
Subject: Re: Is network backup still a good idea?
From: "Kampa, Ray (MCI)" <Ray.A.Kampa AT MCI DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1998 15:47:06 -0600
Roger,

How much of this is *unchanging* data?  If unchanging (such as email and
graphics), then use archive instead of backup.  We did this on some large
email clients with good results -- less DB overhead.  Of course, you will
need to determine the time limits on retention.  We negotiated 60 days.
Desktop clients might want forever, in which case I'd recommend the local
tape drive and let the desktop people do their own backups using local
scheduling software.  Forever retention is unlikely to be useful after a
period of years due to software moving ahead in versions.

Is ADSM worthwhile with large clients?  Well, network speeds are lagging and
we look forward to Fibre, Gb Ethernet & etc.  Nevertheless, ADSM is gaining
ground in our multi-terabyte production data centers.  Why?  Automation.
You can do more with less wetware (warm bodies), and the wetware
administrating ADSM is more in tune with the processes, technologies and
business.

Imagine trying to keep track of thousands of tapes for hundreds of clients
without tape robotics and the ADSM DB.

I shudder.

Best regards,
Ray Kampa
MCI WorldCom
Storage Management
ADSM Support



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Deschner [SMTP:U52983 AT UICVM.UIC DOT EDU]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 11:47 AM
> To:   ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Subject:      Is network backup still a good idea?
>
> ADSM is truly best-of-breed at what it does, but we are beginning to
> question the whole notion of network backup of desktop systems.
>
> Why? Because they are getting so huge!
>
> I can go to Best Buy or a mailorder place and get an 8gb disk drive for
> under $200. Then I can go out with my camera and take a bunch of pictures
> of trees changing colors in the mountains, microbes under a microscope,
> or whatever, mess with them in Photoshop, or I can reprocess the census
> ad infinitum in SPSS, and fill it up. And then ADSM comes along and backs
> that up.
>
> Even with: 100mb switched Ethernet and DLT tapes, a data explosion is
> underway. Disk drive technology is outpacing network technology,
> software, server technology, and tape technology.
>
> When we started in ADSM, we assumed it would be just a small thing that
> we could move around to different servers. Now, it is taking a
> significant part of a very large system, and we can't move it without
> great effort even if we wanted to.
>
> What are we backing up? Parkinson's Law applies to disk space. Data will
> expand to fill the available disk space. Exclude files that skip over
> duplicate copies of the operating system itself are but a drop in the
> bucket.
>
> In this brave new world of snowballing digital junk accumulation, ADSM
> does not scale too well. Oh, it does its job just fine. But as we move to
> this brave new world where a single desktop system may contain hundreds
> of thousands or even millions of files, the ADSM database begins to get
> in the way. Although it is a very efficient thing, and its
> commit/rollback architecture makes it extremely reliable, it is just
> keeping too much information about its contents, in an environment where
> the number of stored objects is exploding by orders of magnitude.
>
> And the objects themselves are growing too! I'd love to be in the data
> tape business right now.
>
> We can probably push ADSM farther into this brave new world than most of
> its competitors, because of its basically superior design - but even it
> won't last long. It's an architectural problem, not a technical one; ADSM
> is technically superior on
>
> We could buy a cheap, high-capacity tape drive for each desktop unit, and
> let each owner (NOT!) back it up. This puts us back where we started when
> WDSF (ADSM's predecessor) was invented - valuable corporate data at risk
> because some doughhead didn't understand the importance of backing up his
> own PC. ADSM has directly saved more than one doctoral dissertation and
> funded research project here at UIC. I don't like going back to
> individual workstation backup, but that's where we're headed, as the
> fundamental equations of backup change, again.
>
> I'm fishing for a general direction, and I have not mentioned any
> specific platforms or technology except to illustrate the basic problem.
> This is a cross-platform industry problem. Comments? Debate? No flames -
> I am asking this as an open ended question, for which I'm afraid there
> is no "right answer". It's a whole new world, again.
>
> Roger Deschner      University of Illinois at Chicago     rogerd AT uic DOT 
> edu
> Aliases:             USUICZ3P at IBMMAIL            u52983 AT uicvm.uic DOT 
> edu
> == All of our systems will be fully Year 2000 Compliant by Jan 1, 1900 ==