Lee,

Neoscale is a great device and does not need an auxillary server for key
management. Also Paranoia, from Digital Information Systems, is a good
device.

I worked with both, whilst I was at Legato, to get certified. Neoscale
actually understands NetWorker labels, so you can even add rules based on
the label info. It compresses and then encrypts inside the box at near zero
latency.

Siobhan



On 28/8/07 7:32 AM, "Lee Roth" <bwc_lr1 AT EASY48 DOT COM> wrote:

> I'm less that pleased with the impact that software encryption has had on
> my NW V7.4 (Unix) operation.
> 
> Pre-software-encryption: I used to run my (count: 35) clients with
> compression ENABLED and I was able to fit 24 hours of backups of my client
> systems onto my 1TB of disk space. Clones for offsite backups were
> reasonably quick onto my LTO3 drives coming directly from disk.
> 
> In order to enable the software encryption in NW, I had to *DISABLE* the
> compression and *WOW* what an impact on my disk usage on the NW server! I
> had to revert to having only my critical systems backup directly to disk,
> all of the others now backup directly to tape. The main pain is that write
> performance from these clients direct to tape suffers since it is no
> longer buffered by the disk; I'm pretty sure that the data rate to the
> tape drives is often below the rate needed to keep them streaming, thus
> "shoeshining" (backhitching) is probably happening on the drives -
> something I want to avoid.
> 
> I'd rather spend the $$ on hardware encryption instead of additional disk
> space for my backups, which would mean purchase of the next tier of backup
> license for NW. With hardware encryption I can re-enable compression and
> will again have adequate disk space for all of my clients to backup to.
> 
> Does anyone have any comments or experience on the encryption appliances
> that sit between the SCSI controller and the tape drives? (I have copper
> LVD SCSI, BTW - no fiberchannel). How is the throughput?
> 
> It would appear that some of these appliances need an auxiliary server to
> handle key management - I don't really want/need that for my tiny
> operation.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Lee Roth
> 
> To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
> type
> "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to
> networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with 
> this list.
> You can access the archives at
> http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
> via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER
> 


Siobhán

To sign off this list, send email to listserv AT listserv.temple DOT edu and 
type "signoff networker" in the body of the email. Please write to 
networker-request AT listserv.temple DOT edu if you have any problems with this 
list. You can access the archives at 
http://listserv.temple.edu/archives/networker.html or
via RSS at http://listserv.temple.edu/cgi-bin/wa?RSS&L=NETWORKER