Veritas-bu

[Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

2006-09-15 09:33:18
Subject: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?
From: JMARTI05 at intersil.com (Martin, Jonathan (Contractor))
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2006 09:33:18 -0400
We were looking at an offsite backup solution w/ Diligent here and everyone we 
talked to (Local Reseller, Diligent Sales & Technical resources) said our HDS 
AMS500 w/ SATA Shelves would be fine.  In the end we balked at the Diligent 
Protectier software cost and went another way but cost aside this solution was 
our best choice.

-Jonathan
 

-----Original Message-----
From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces 
at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Hampus Lind
Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 9:12 AM
To: 'Paul Keating'; briandiven at northwesternmutual.com; didier.brun at 
fr.thalesgroup.com
Cc: veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

Hi,

ProtecTier on work over FC protocol but I have never heard that it require FC 
disk... When I meet with diligent people from Israel, I told them that we 
already have 7 TB of SATA that we which to "re-use", that would be no problem, 
they said.

They only support FC arrays today, but in that array you can have both FC and 
SATA drives. It feels strange creating a backup-to-disk solution that only 
support FC disks...

The guy selling you ProtecTier, does he work at HDS and want you to buy a 
solution that includes expensive FC disks?? ;-)

I think you need to find another source to Diligent, or perhaps I need to find 
one that tells me the truth.. :-)





Hampus Lind
Rikspolisstyrelsen
National Police Board
Tel dir: +46 (0)8 - 401 99 43
Tel mob: +46 (0)70 - 217 92 66
E-mail: hampus.lind at rps.police.se


-----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fr?n: Paul Keating [mailto:pkeating at bank-banque-canada.ca]
Skickat: den 15 september 2006 14:51
Till: Hampus Lind; briandiven at northwesternmutual.com;
didier.brun at fr.thalesgroup.com
Kopia: veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
?mne: RE: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?

I like the look of the ProtecTIER product.

However, I've come up with some information that I can't get a hard answer on.
The info I got from Diligent coonfused me even more.

Everything I can find, and am told by either HDS, or Diligent says that 
Protectier requires FC disk.......as in, not SATA......

I find this confusing.....sure the data de-duplication technology requires 
knowing where the data is on disk, quickly, etc, etc. So I said to the Diligent 
rep I spoke with "Ok, so the de-duplication algorithm actually has to search 
the disk to find patterns?" to which I got the response (paraphrasing)"Oh no, 
of course not...all of the data on disk is mapped in RAM, we can map 1PB of 
disk in 4GB of RAM. The appliance doesn't need to read the disk to find hash 
matches, etc. All of that is done in RAM and only the unique data that needs to 
be written to disk is written to disk".
So I asked why then would FC disk be necessary???
After pushing it a bit, I got a response that Yes, it would technically "work" 
with SATA disk, however there would be a performance hit due to SATA's transfer 
speed, of approx 40%, so they don't support SATA.

So....here's my confusion....since the de-duplication is being done "in stream" 
on the appliance before the data ever gets to the disk array, then with the 
advertised 25:1 ratio, only 4% of the data hitting the box is getting written 
to disk.

Even if the SATA disk is 80% slower that FC (being fascetious here), shouldn't 
it still be like 5 times faster than another product that writes "everything" 
to SATA disk? Yes all the other VTL vendors are basing their products on SATA 
(as Diligent is with their VTF Open
product)


Paul

-- 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> [mailto:veritas-bu-bounces at mailman.eng.auburn.edu] On Behalf Of Hampus 
> Lind
> Sent: September 14, 2006 1:54 PM
> To: briandiven at northwesternmutual.com; didier.brun at fr.thalesgroup.com
> Cc: veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu
> Subject: Re: [Veritas-bu] problems with VTL StorageTek solution ?
> 
> 
> However, I have looked at both diligent and falconstor, and for now I 
> think I would go with diligent.. What do you guys think??
> 


_______________________________________________
Veritas-bu maillist  -  Veritas-bu at mailman.eng.auburn.edu 
http://mailman.eng.auburn.edu/mailman/listinfo/veritas-bu