Tag Archives: snapmirror

NetApp and EMC: Replication Management Tools Comparison

Posted on by

I started this post before I started working for EMC and got sidetracked with other topics.  Recent discussions I’ve had with people have got me thinking more about orchestration of data protection, replication, and disaster recovery, so it was time to finish this one up…

———————————–

Prior to me coming to work for EMC, I was working on a project to leverage NetApp and EMC storage simultaneously for redundancy.  I had a chance to put various tools from EMC and NetApp into production and have been able to make some observations with respect to some of the differences.  This is a follow up my previous NetApp and EMC posts…

NetApp and EMC: Real world comparisons
NetApp and EMC: Startup and First Impressions
NetApp and EMC: ESX and Exchange 2007 CCR
NetApp and EMC: Exchange 2007 Replication

Specifically this post is a comparison between NetApp SnapManager 5.x and EMC Replication Manager 5.x.  First, here’s a quick background on both tools based on my personal experience using them.

Description

EMC Replication Manager (RM) is a single application that runs on a dedicated “Replication Manager Server.”  RM agents are deployed to the hosts of applications that will be replicated.  RM supports local and remote replication features in EMC’s Clariion storage array, Celerra Unified NAS, Symmetrix DMX/V-Max, Invista, and RecoverPoint products.  With a single interface, Replication Manager lets you schedule, modify, and monitor snapshot, clone, and replication jobs for Exchange, SQL, Oracle, Sharepoint, VMWare, Hyper-V, etc.  RM supports Role-Based authentication so application owners can have access to jobs for their own applications for monitoring and managing replication.  RM can manage jobs across all of the supported applications, array types, and replication technologies simultaneously.  RM is licensed by storage array type and host count. No specific license is required to support the various applications.

NetApp SnapManager is actually a series of applications designed for each application that NetApp supports.  There are versions of SnapManager for Exchange, SQL, Sharepoint, SAP, Oracle, VMWare, and Hyper-V.  The SnapManager application is installed on each host of an application that will be replicated, and jobs are scheduled on each specific host using Windows Task Scheduler.  Each version of SnapManager is licensed by application and host count.  I believe you can also license SnapManager per-array instead of per-host which could make financial sense if you have lots of hosts.

Commonality

EMC Replication Manager and NetApp SnapManager products tackle the same customer problem–provide guaranteed recoverability of an application, in the primary or a secondary datacenter, using array-based replication technologies.  Both products leverage array-based snapshot and replication technology while layering application-consistency intelligence to perform their duties.  In general, they automate local and remote protection of data.  Both applications have extensive CLI support for those that want that.

Differences

  • Deployment
    • EMC RM – Replication Manager is a client-server application installed on a control server.  Agents are deployed to the protected servers.
    • NetApp SM – SnapManager is several applications that are installed directly on the servers that host applications being protected.
  • Job Management
    • EMC RM – All job creation, management, and monitoring is done from the central GUI. Replication Manager has a Java based GUI.
    • NetApp SM – Job creation and monitoring is done via the SnapManager GUI on the server being protected.  SnapManager utilizes an MMC based GUI.
  • Job Scheduling
    • EMC RM – Replication Manager has a central scheduler built-in to the product that runs on the RM Server.  Jobs are initiated and controlled by the RM Server, the agent on the protected server performs necessary tasks as required.
    • NetApp SM – SnapManager jobs are scheduled with Windows Task Scheduler after creation.  The SnapManager GUI creates the initial scheduled task when a job is created through the wizard.  Modifications are made by editing the scheduled task in Windows task scheduler.

So while the tools essentially perform the same function, you can see that there are clear architectural differences, and that’s where the rubber meets the road.  Being a centrally managed client-server application, EMC Replication Manager has advantages for many customers.

Simple Comparison Example: Exchange 2007 CCR cluster
(snapshot and replicate one of the two copies of Exchange data)

With NetApp SnapManager, the application is installed on both cluster nodes, then an administrator must log on to the console on the node that hosts the copy you want to replicate, and create two jobs which run on the same schedule.  Job A is configured to run when the node is the active node, Job B is configured to run when the node is passive.  Due to some of the differences in the settings, I was unable to configure a single job that ran successfully regardless of whether the node was active or passive.  If you want to modify the settings, you either have to edit the command line options in the Scheduled Task, or create a new job from scratch and delete the old one.

With EMC Replication Manager, you deploy the agent to both cluster nodes, then in the RM GUI, create a job against the cluster virtual name, not the individual node.  You define which server you want the job to run on in the cluster, and whether the job should run when the node is passive, active, or both.  All logs, monitoring, and scheduling is done in the same RM GUI, even if you have 50 Exchange clusters, or SQL and Oracle for that matter.  Modifying the job is done by right-clicking on the job and editing the properties.  Modifying the schedule is done in the same way.

So as the number of servers and clusters increases in your environment, having a central UI to manage and monitor all jobs across the enterprise really helps.  But here’s where having a centrally managed application really shines…

But what if it gets complicated?

Let’s say you have a multi-tier application like IBM FileNet, EMC Documentum, or OpenText and you need to replicate multiple servers, multiple databases, and multiple file systems that are all related to that single application.  Not only does EMC Replication Manager support SQL and Filesystems in the same GUI, you can tie the jobs together and make them dependent on each other for both failure reporting and scheduling.  For example, you can snapshot a database and a filesystem, then replicate both of them without worrying about how long the first job takes to complete.  Jobs can start other jobs on completely independent systems as necessary.

Without this job dependence functionality, you’d generally have to create scheduled tasks on each server and have dependent jobs start with a delay that is long enough to allow the first job to complete while as short as possible to prevent the two parts of the application from getting too far out of sync.  Some times the first job takes longer than usual causing subsequent jobs to complete incorrectly.  This is where Replication Manager shows it’s muscle with it’s ability to orchestrate complex data protection strategies, across the entire enterprise, with your choice of protection technologies (CDP, Snapshot, Clone, Bulk Copy, Async, Sync) from a single central user interface.

Category: comparisons, solutions, technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

You don’t need a Backup solution!

Posted on by

Well, not exactly.  What you really need is a restore solution!

I was discussing this with a colleague recently as we compared difficulties multiple customers are having with backups in general.  My colleague was relating a discussion he had with his customer where he told them, “stop thinking about how to design a backup solution, and start thinking about how to design a restore solution!”

Most of our customers are in the same boat, they work really hard to make sure that their data is backed up within some window of time, and offsite as soon as possible in order to ensure protection in the event of a catastrophic failure.  What I’ve noticed in my previous positions in IT and more so now as a technical consultant with EMC is that (in my experience) most people don’t really think about how that data is going to get restored when it is needed.  There are a few reasons for this:

  • Backing up data is the prerequisite for a restore; IT professionals need to get backups done, regardless of whether they need to restore the data.  It’s difficult to plan for theoretical needs and restore is still viewed, incorrectly, as theoretical.
  • Backup throughput and duration is easily measured on a daily basis, restores occur much more rarely and are not normally reported on.
  • Traditional backup has been done largely the same way for a long time and most customers follow the same model of nightly backups (weekly full, daily incremental) to disk and/or tape, shipping tape offsite to Iron Mountain or similar.

I think storage vendors, EMC and NetApp particularly, are very good at pointing out the distinction between a backup solution and a restore solution, where backup vendors are not quite as good at this.  So what is the difference?

When designing a backup solution the following factors are commonly considered:

  • Size of Protected Data – How much data do I have to protect with backup (usually GB or TB)
  • Backup Window – How much time do I have each night to complete the backups (in hours)
  • Backup Throughput – How fast can I move the data from it’s normally location to the backup target
  • Applications – What special applications do I have to integrate with (Exchange, Oracle, VMWare)
  • Retention Policy – How long do I have to hang on to the backups for policy or legal purposes
  • Offsite storage – How do I get the data stored at some other location in case of fire or other disaster

If you look at it from a restore prospective, you might think about the following:

  • How long can I afford to be down after a failure?  Recovery Time Objective (RTO): This will determine the required restore speed.  If all backups are stored offsite, the time to recall a tape or copy data across the WAN affects this as well.
  • How much data can I afford to lose if I have to restore? Recovery Point Objective (RPO):  This will determine how often the backup must occur, and in many cases this is less than 24 hours.
  • Where do I need to restore the application? This will help in determining where to send the data offsite.

Answer these questions first and you may find that a traditional backup solution is not going to fulfill your requirements.  You may need to look at other technologies, like Snapshots, Clones, replication, CDP, etc.  If a backup takes 8 hours, the restore of that data will most likely take at least 8 hours, if not closer to 16 hours.  If you are talking about a highly transactional database, hosting customer facing web sites, and processing millions of dollars per hour, 8 hours of downtime for a restore is going to cost you tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.

Two of my customers have database instances hosted on EMC storage, for example, which are in the 20TB size range.  They’ve each architected a backup solution that can get that 20TB database backed up within their backup window.  The problem is, once that backup completes, they still have to offsite the backup, and replicate it to their DR site across a relatively small WAN link.  They both use compressed database dumps for backup because, from the DBA’s perspective, dumps are the easiest type of backup to restore from, and the compression helps get 20TB of data pushed across 1gbe Ethernet connections to the backup server.  One of the customers is actually backing up all of their data to DataDomain deduplication appliances already; the other is planning to deploy DataDomain.  The problem in both cases is that, if you pre-compress the backup data, you break deduplication, and you get no benefit from the DataDomain appliance vs. traditional disk.  Turning off compression in the dump can’t be done because the backup would take longer than the backup window allows.  The answer here is to step back, think about the problem you are trying to solve–restoring data as quickly as possible in the event of failure–and design for that problem.

How might these customers leverage what they already have, while designing a restore solution to meet their needs?

Since they are already using EMC storage, the first step would be to start taking snapshots and/or clones of the database.  These snapshots can be used for multiple purposes…

  • In the event of database corruption, or other host/filesystem/application level problem, the production volume can be reverted to a snapshot in a matter of minutes regardless of the size of the database (better RTO).  Snapshots can be taken many times a day to reduce the amount of data loss incurred in the event of a restore (better RPO).
  • A snapshot copy of the database can be mounted to a backup server directly and backed up directly to tape or backup disk.  This eliminates the requirement to perform database dumps at all as well as any network bottleneck between the database server and backup server.  Since there is no dump process, and no requirement to pre-compress the data, de-duplication (via DataDomain) can be employed most efficiently.  Using a small 10gbps private network between the backup media servers and DataDomain appliances, in conjunction with DD-BOOST, throughput can be 2.5X faster than with CIFS, NFS, or VTL to the same DataDomain appliance.  And with de-duplication being leveraged, retention can be very long since each day’s backup only adds a small amount of new data to the DataDomain.
  • Now that we’ve improved local restore RTO/RPO, eliminated the backup window entirely for the database server, and decreased the amount of disk required for backup retention, we can replicate the backup to another DataDomain appliance at the DR site.  Since we are taking full advantage of de-duplication now, the replication bandwidth required is greatly reduced and we can offsite the backup data in a much shorter period of time.
  • Next, we give the DBAs back the ability to restore databases easily, and at will, by leveraging EMC Replication Manager.  RM manages the snapshot schedules, mounting of snaps to the backup server, and initiation of backup jobs from the snapshot, all in a single GUI that storage admins and DBAs can access simultaneously.

So we leveraged the backup application they already own, the DataDomain appliances they already own, storage arrays they already own, built a small high-bandwidth backup network, and layered some additional functionality, to drastically improve their ability to restore critical data.  The very next time they have a data integrity problem that requires a restore, these customer’s will save literally millions of dollars due to their ability to restore in minutes vs. hours.

If RPO’s of a few hours are not acceptable, then a Continuous Data Protection (CDP) solution could be added to this environment.  EMC RecoverPoint CDP can journal all database activity to be used to restore to any point in time, bringing data loss (RPO) to zero or near-zero, something no amount of snapshots can provide, and keeping restore time (RTO) within minutes (like snapshots).  Further, the journaled copy of the database can be stored on a different storage array providing complete protection for the entire hardware/software stack.  RecoverPoint CDP can be combined with Continuous Remote Replication (CRR) to replicate the journaled data to the DR site and provide near-zero RPO and extremely low RTO in a DR/BC scenario.  Backups could be transitioned to the DR site leveraging the RecoverPoint CRR copies to reduce or eliminate the need to replicate backup data.  EMC Replication Manager manages RecoverPoint jobs in the same easy to use GUI as snapshot and clone jobs.

There are a whole host of options available from EMC (and other storage vendors) to protect AND restore data in ways that traditional backup applications cannot match.  This does not mean that backup software is not also needed, as it usually ends up being a combined solution.

The key to architecting a restore solution is to start thinking about what would happen if you had to restore data, how that impacts the business and the bottom line, and then architect a solution that addresses the business’ need to run uninterrupted, rather than a solution that is focused on getting backups done in some arbitrary daily/nightly window.

Category: problems, technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

NetApp and EMC: Exchange 2007 Replication

Posted on by

Exchange Replication

Building on the redundant storage project, we also wanted to replicate Exchange to a remote datacenter for disaster recovery purposes.  We’ve been using EMC CLARiiON MirrorView/A and Replication Manager for various applications up to now and decided we’d use NetApp/SnapMirror for Exchange to leverage the additional hardware as well as a way to evaluate NetApp’s replication functionality vs EMC’s.

On EMC Clariion storage, there are a couple choices for replicating applications like Exchange.
1.) Use MirrorView/Async with Consistency Groups to replicate Exchange databases in a crash-consistent state.
2.) Use EMC Replication Manager with Snapview snapshots and SANCopy/Incremental to update the remote site copy.

Similar to EMC’s Replication Manager, NetApp has SnapManager for various applications, which coordinates snapshots, and replica updates on a NetApp filer.

Whether using EMC RM or NetApp SM, software must be installed on all nodes in the Exchange cluster to quiesce the databases and initiate updates.  The advantage of Consistency groups with MirrorView is that no software needs to be installed in the host; all work is performed within the storage array.  The advantage of RM and SM/E is that database consistency is verified on each update and the software can coordinate restoring data to the same or alternate servers, which must be done manually if using MirrorView.

NetApp doesn’t support consistent snapshots across multiple volumes so the only option on a Filer is to use SnapManager for Exchange to coordinate snapshots and SnapMirror updates.

Our first attempt configuring SnapManager for Exchange actually failed when we ran into a compatibility issue with SnapDrive.  SnapManager depends on SnapDrive for mapping LUNs between the host and filer, and to communicate with the filer to create snapshots, etc.  We’d discussed our environment with NetApp and IBM ahead of time, specifically that we have Exchange CCR running on VMWare, with FiberChannel LUNs and everyone agreed that SnapDrive supports VMWare, Exchange, Microsoft Clustering, and VMWare Raw Devices.  It turns out that SnapDrive 6 DOES support all of this, but not all at the same time.  Specifically, MSCS clustering is not supported with FC Raw Devices on VMWare.  In comparison, EMC’s Replication Manager has supported this configuration for quite a while.  After further discussion NetApp confirmed that our environment was not supported in the current version of SnapDrive (6.0.2) and that SnapDrive 6.2, which was still in Beta, would resolve the issue.

Fast forward a couple months, SnapDrive 6.2 has been released and it does indeed support our environment so we’ve finally installed and configured SnapDrive and SnapManager.  We’ve dedicated the EMC side of the Exchange environment for the active nodes and the IBM for the passive nodes.  SnapManager snapshots the passive node databases, mounts them to run database verification, then updates the remote mirror using SnapMirror.

While SnapManager does do exactly what we need it to do, my experience with it hasn’t been great so far…  First, SnapManager relies on Windows Task Scheduler to run scheduled jobs, which has been causing issues.  The job will run on its schedule for a day, then stop after which the task must be edited to make it run again.  This happens in the lab and on both of our production Exchange clusters.  I also found a blog post about this same issue from someone else.

The other issue right now is that database verification takes a long time, due to the slow speed of ESEUTIL itself.  A single update on one node takes about 4 hours (for about 1TB of Exchange data) so we haven’t been able to achieve our goal of a 2-hour replication RPO.  IBM will be onsite next week to review our status and discuss any options.  An update on this will follow once we find a solution to both issues.  In the meantime I will post a comparison of replication tools between EMC and NetApp soon.

Category: comparisons, problems, solutions, technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,