Tag Archives: symmetrix

Using Cloud as a SAN Tier?

Posted on by

I came across this press release today from a company that I wasn’t familiar with and immediately wanted more information.  Cirtas Systems has announced support for Atmos-based clouds, including AT&T Synaptic Storage.  Whenever I see these types of announcements, I read on in hopes of seeing real fiber channel block storage leveraging cloud-based architectures in some way.  So far I’ve been a bit disappointed since the closest I’ve seen has been NAS based systems, at best including iSCSI.

Cirtas BlueJet Cloud Storage Controller is pretty interesting in its own right though.  It’s essentially an iSCSI storage array with a cache and a small amount of SSD and SAS drives for local storage.  Any data beyond the internal 5TB of usable capacity is stored in “the cloud” which can be an onsite Private Cloud (Atmos or Atmos/VE) and/or a Public Cloud hosted by Amazon S3, Iron Mountain, AT&T Synaptic, or any Atmos-based cloud service provider.

Cirtas BlueJet

The neat thing with BlueJet is that it leverages a ton of the functionality that many storage vendors have been developing recently such as data de-duplication, compression, some kind of block level tiering, and space efficient snapshots to improve performance and reduce the costs of cloud storage.  It seems that pretty much all of the local storage (SAS, SSD, and RAM) is used as a tiered cache for hot data.  This gives users and applications the sense of local SAN performance even while hosting the majority of data offsite.

While I haven’t seen or used a BlueJet device and can’t make any observations about performance or functionality, I believe this sort of block->cloud approach has pretty significant customer value.  It reduces physical datacenter costs for power and cooling, and it presents some rather interesting disaster recovery opportunities.

Similar to how Compellent’s signature feature, tiered block storage, has been added to more traditional storage arrays, I think modified implementations of Cirtas’ technology will inevitably come from the larger players, such as EMC, as a feature in standard storage arrays.  If you consider that EMC Unified Storage and EMC Symmetrix VMAX both have large caches and block- level tiering today, it’s not too much of a stretch to integrate Atmos directly into those storage systems as another tier.  EMC already does this for NAS with the EMC File Management Appliance.

Conceptual Diagram

I can imagine leveraging FASTCache and FASTVP to tier locally for the data that must be onsite for performance and/or compliance reasons and pushing cold/stale blocks off to the cloud.  Additionally, adding cloud as a tier to traditional storage arrays allows customers to leverage their existing investment in Storage, FC/FCoE networks, reporting and performance trending tools, extensive replication options available, and the existing support for VMWare APIs like SRM and VAAI.

With this model, replication of data for disaster recovery/avoidance only needs to be done for the onsite data since the cloud data could be accessed from anywhere.  At a DR site, a second storage system connects to the same cloud and can access the cold/stale data in the event of a disaster.

Another option would be adding this functionality to virtualization platforms like EMC VPLEX for active/active multi-site access to SAN data, while only needing to store the majority of the company’s data once in the cloud for lower cost.  Customers would no longer have to buy double the required capacity to implement a disaster recovery strategy.

I’m eagerly awating the implementation of cloud into traditional block storage and I can see how some vendors will be able to do this easily, while others may not have the architecture to integrate as easily.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Category: efficiency, solutions, technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why pNFS can be a big deal even if NFS4.1 isn’t…

Posted on by

It’s been a little while since I’ve posted, mostly due to my life being turned on it’s rear after our first child was born 8 weeks ago.  As things start to settle into a rhythm (as much as is possible) I’ve been back online more, reading blogs, following Twitter, and working with customers regularly.  As some of you may know, EMC announced support for pNFS in Celerra with the release of DART 6.x and there have been several recent posts about the technology which piqued my interest a little.

The other bloggers have done a good job of describing what pNFS is and what is new in NFS4.1 itself so I won’t repeat all of that.  I want to focus specifically on pNFS and why it IS a big deal.

Prior to my coming to work for EMC, I worked in internal IT at company that deals with large binary files in support of product development, as well as video editing for marketing purposes.  I had a chance to evaluate, implement, and support multiple clustered file system technologies.  The first was for an HD video editing solution using Mac’s and we followed the likely path of implementing Apple’s XSAN solution which you may know is an OEM’d version of Quantum(ADIC) StorNext.  StorNext allows you to create large filesystems across many disks and access them as local disk on many clients.  File Open, Close, byte-range locking, etc are handled by MetaData Controllers (MDCs) across an IP network while the actual heavy lifting of read/write IO is done over FibreChannel from the clients to the storage directly.  All the shared filesystem benefits of NAS with the performance benefits of SAN.

The second project was specifically targeted at moving large files (4+GB each) through a workflow across many computers as quickly as possible so we could ship products.  Faster processing of the workflow translated to more completed projects per person/per day which meant better margins and keeping our partners and customers happy.  The workflow was already established, using Windows based computers and a file server.  The file server was running out of steam and the amount of data being stored at any given time had increased from 500GB to 8TB over the past 12 months.  We needed a simple way to increase the performance of the file server and also allow for better scalability.  Working with our local EMC SE, we tested and deployed MPFSi using a Celerra NS40 with integrated storage.

MPFS has been around a long time (also known as High Road) and works with Windows and various *nix based platforms.  It is similar to XSAN/StorNext in that open/close/locking activity is handled over IP by the metadata controller (the Celerra datamover in the case of MPFS) while the read/write IO is handled over block storage technology (MPFS supports FibreChannel and iSCSI connectivity to storage).  The advantage of MPFS over many other solutions is that the metadata controller and storage are all built-in to the EMC Celerra storage device and you don’t have to deploy any other servers.

In our case we chose iSCSI due to the cost of FC (switches and HBAs) and used the GigE ports on the Celerra’s CX3 backend for block connectivity.  In testing we showed that CIFS alone provided approximately 240mbps of throughput over GigE connections while enabling MPFSi netted about 750mbps, even if we used the same NIC on the client.  So we tripled throughput over the same LAN by installing a software client.  Had we gone the extra mile to deploy FibreChannel for the block IO we would have seen much higher throughput.

Even better, the use of MPFS did not preclude the use of NDMP for backup to tape directly from the Celerra, accelerating backup many times over the old fileserver.  For clients that did not have MPFS software installed, they accessed the same files over traditional CIFS with no problems.  Another side benefit of MPFS over traditional CIFS, is that the block I/O stack is much more efficient than the NAS I/O stack so even with increased throughput, CPU utilization is lower on the client returning cycles to the application which is doing work for your business.

There are many clustered file system / clustered NAS solutions on the market from a variety of vendors (StorNext, MPFS, GFS, Polyserve, etc) and most of these products are trying to solve the same basic problems of storing more data and increasing performance.  The problem is they are all proprietary and because of that you end up with multiple solutions deployed in the same company.  In our case we couldn’t use MPFS for the video editing solution because EMC has not provided a client for Mac OSX.  And this is where pNFS really becomes attractive.  Storage vendors and operating system vendors alike will be upgrading the already ubiquitous NFS stack in their code to support NFS4.1 and pNFS.  And that support means that I could deploy an EMC Celerra MPFS like solution using the same Celerra based storage, with no extra servers, and no special client software, just the native NFS client in my operating system of choice.  Perhaps Apple will include a pNFS capable client in a future version of Mac OSX.

If you look at the pNFS standard you’ll see that it supports the use of not only block storage, but object and file based storage as well.  So as we build out larger and larger environments and private clouds start to expand into public clouds you could tier your pNFS data across FiberChannel storage, object storage (think Atmos on premises), as well as out to a service provider cloud (ie: AT&T Synaptic).  Now you’ve dramatically increased performance for the data that needs it, saved money storing the data that you need to keep long term, and geographically dispersed the data that needs to be close to users, with a single protocol supported by most of the industry and a single point of management.

Personally I think pNFS could kill off proprietary solutions over the long run unless they include support for it in their products.

This is just my opinion of course…

Category: announcements, efficiency, solutions, technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lies, Damn Lies, and Marketing…

Posted on by

Yesterday, In his blog posted entitled “Myth Busting: Storage Guarantees“, Vaughn Stewart from NetApp blogged about the EMC 20% Guarantee and posted a chart of storage efficiency features from EMC and NetApp platforms to illustrate his point.  Chuck Hollis from EMC called it “chartsmithing” in comment but didn’t elaborate specifically on the charts deficiencies.  Well allow me to take that ball…

As presented, Vaughn’s chart (below) is technically factual (with one exception which I’ll note), but it plays on the human emotion of Good vs Bad (Green vs Red) by attempting to show more Red on EMC products than there should be.

The first and biggest problem is the chart compares EMC Symmetrix and EMC Clariion dedicated-block storage arrays with NetApp FAS, EMC Celerra, and NetApp vSeries which are all Unified storage systems or gateways.  Rather than put n/a or leave the field blank for NAS features on the block-only arrays, the chart shows a resounding and red NO, leading the reader to assume that the feature should be there but somehow EMC left it out.

As far as keeping things factual, some of the EMC and NetApp features in this chart are not necessarily shipping today (very soon though, and since it affects both vendors I’ll allow it here).  And I must make a correction with respect to EMC Symmetrix and Space Reclamation, which IS available on Symm today.

I’ve taken the liberty of massaging Vaughn’s chart to provide a more balanced view of the feature comparison.  I’ve also added EMC Celerra gateway on Symmetrix to the comparison as well as an additional data point which I felt was important to include.

I’ve included some footnotes in the chart to explain some of the results but I’ll explain a little here as well.

1.) I removed the block only EMC configuration devices because the NetApp devices in the comparison are Unified systems.

2.) I removed the SAN data row for Single Instance storage because Single Instance (identical file) data reduction technology is inherently NAS related.

3.) Zero Space Reclamation is a feature available in Symmetrix storage.  In Clariion, the Compression feature can provide a similar result since zero pages are compressible.

I left the 3 different data reduction techniques as individually listed even though the goal of all of them is to save disk space.  Depending on the data types, each method has strengths and weaknesses.

One question, if a bug in OnTap causes a vSeries to lose access to the disk on a Symmetrix during an online Enginuity upgrade, who do you call?  How would you know ahead of time if EMC hasn’t validated vSeries on Symmetrix like EMC does with many other operating systems/hosts/applications in eLab?

The goal if my post here really is to show how the same data can be presented in different ways to give readers a different impression.  I won’t get into too much as far as technical differences between the products, like how comparing FAS to Symmetrix is like comparing a box truck to a freight train, or how fronting an N+1 loosely coupled clustered, global cached, high-end storage array with a midrange dual-controller gateway for block data might not be in a customer’s best interest.

What do you think?

Category: comparisons, FUD, technologies | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Resiliency vs Redundancy: Using VPLEX for SQL HA

Posted on by

A little history on my philosophy around high-availability

Around the year 2000, when I was working in network operations for a large wireless telco, a very senior network architect explained to me the company’s philosophy on building high availability solutions into the network.  The phrase I remember from that conversation was “we don’t build redundant networks, we build resilient networks..” The difference is that while redundant networks failover to secondary paths to resume traffic, resilient networks don’t go down at all.  This concept has stuck with me ever since and I tend to tackle high-availability problems of all kinds with this idea in mind.  It’s frankly been very difficult to build solutions that are resilient across the entire stack, mostly because infrastructure technology hasn’t quite gotten there yet.

Things may have changed…

I recently had a meeting with a customer to discuss local high availability for SQL.  This customer has a very large multi-node clustered SQL environment (hundreds of TBs of data, hundreds of databases, hundreds of instances, many clusters, many nodes per cluster) and has been testing SQL database mirroring as an alternative to traditional Windows Failover Clustering.  The focus of the meeting wound up focused primarily on leveraging VPLEX as an alternative to SQL mirroring, and the reasons for that decision suddenly reminded me of the Resiliency vs Redundancy discussion I had years ago.  A VPLEX solution potentially solves the same problem as DB mirroring, does it with less complexity, and less risk.

VPLEX Local as a Resilient HA solution

One of the many features of VPLEX is it’s ability to mirror data across multiple storage arrays and present that mirror as a single LUN to the host.  For customers already running large multi-node MSCS clusters, the LUN appears just like any normal storage LUN and Windows/SQL treat the LUN normally.  There are several reasons VPLEX should be considered as an alternative to database mirroring. (much of this applies to Exchange CCR as well)

VPLEX hardware is inherently Resilient.  A VPLEX cluster is an N+1 cluster of loosely coupled nodes, cooperating with each other, but not depending on each other.  Hosts can access any of the hosted data, through any of the ports, on any of the cluster nodes.  If a node fails for any reason, the remaining nodes continue serving IO for any data.  Except for a dead path on the host side (managed by PowerPath or MPIO), there is no failover process, and no cache mirroring to worry about.  The potential performance impact of a failure is equal to 1, divided by the quantity of that component in the cluster. (128 x 8gbe ports across 8 director nodes for a large VPLEX Local cluster)

In addition, because VPLEX utilizes a write-through cache, there is never any dirty cache data (data in cache that has not been committed to disk) in a VPLEX system.  A power outage or VPLEX hardware failure does not put data at risk.

Other Advantages of using VPLEX over SQL Database Mirroring

Improved Performance:

  • Compared with SQL Database mirroring, VPLEX mirroring has significantly less impact on transaction performance for writes and can improve transaction performance in some cases due to the large read cache in the VPLEX directors. (Note: I am comparing to DB Mirroring in Full-Safety mode since the customer’s requirement was a zero-data-loss solution.)

Non-Disruptive Storage Failover:

  • In the event of a storage failure, SQL Mirroring must perform a cluster node failover which takes a few seconds at best, possibly disrupting applications.  VPLEX provides completely non-disruptive failover when a storage failure occurs.  (A server hardware failure still triggers a node failover as it would in any other failover clustering scenario.)

Less Management Overhead:

  • From a management perspective, using VPLEX instead of SQL Database mirroring gives the SQL DBAs fewer SQL instances and fewer moving parts to manage on a daily basis.  The storage team just presents a mirrored LUN from VPLEX to the cluster and it’s business as usual for the DBAs.
  • VPLEX also allows the storage team to non-disruptively migrate data between storage arrays behind VPLEX to balance load, perform hardware refreshes, resolve capacity problems.  VPLEX performs the migration at the direction of the storage admins.

Reduced Risk:

  • Reducing management complexity also reduces risk.  With a high number of database instances and db mirrors involved in a large environment like this one, the chance of one of those mirrors having a problem, or being configured incorrectly, is increased.  DBAs can rely on VPLEX mirroring all of the data, 24x7x365, even when host maintenance is being performed.

Reduced Cost:

  • When compared with the SQL Database Mirroring solution, the VPLEX solution reduced the number of physical servers needed in this environment, reducing cost enough to more than offset the cost of VPLEX itself.  Combined with reductions in soft costs, like reduced DBA management overhead, VPLEX will actually save them quite a bit of money, and increased uptime during storage refresh and maintenance will increase revenues in this case as well.

A Distributed Future:

  • Next year, when a second datacenter is online nearby, the first VPLEX Local cluster can be connected to another VPLEX cluster in the new datacenter.  Then the SQL cluster nodes and data can be distributed across both datacenters, providing protection from entire datacenter outages, or solving space constraints with no changes to the application or servers, and no downtime.

I wonder how many other customers would like to build more resilient infrastructures?

If you combine a VPLEX solution with a true cluster file system and an active-active database engine (ie: Oracle RAC), you can eliminate the disruption caused by server hardware failures.  It’s just a matter of time now until the entire stack can be designed for true resiliency with very little management overhead.  I can’t wait to see what happens.

The following EMC White Paper has a lot of good information about using VPLEX in this same context:

Workload Resiliency with EMC VPLEX

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

While EMC users benefit from Replication Manager, NetApp users NEED SnapManager

Posted on by

This is a follow up to my recent post NetApp and EMC: Replication Management Tools Comparison, in which I discussed the differences between EMC Replication Manager and NetApp SnapManager.

————

As a former customer of both NetApp and EMC, and now as an employee of EMC, I noticed a big difference between NetApp and EMC as far as marketing their replication management tools. As a customer, EMC talked about Replication Manager several times and we purchased it and deployed it. NetApp made SnapManager a very central part of their sales campaign, sometimes skipping any discussion of the underlying storage in favor of showing off SnapManager functionality. This is an extremely effective sales technique and NetApp sales teams are so good at this that many people don’t even realize that other vendors have similar, and in my opinion EMC has better, functionality.  One of the reasons for this difference in marketing strategy is that NetApp users NEED SnapManager, while EMC users do not always need Replication Manager.

The reason why is both simple and complex…

EMC storage arrays (Clariion, Symmetrix, RecoverPoint, Invista) all have one technology in common that NetApp Filers do not–Consistency Groups. A consistency group allows the storage system to take a snapshot of multiple LUNs simultaneously, so simultaneous in fact that all of the snapshots are at the exact same point in time down to the individual write. This means that, without taking any applications offline and without any orchestration software, EMC storage arrays can create crash-consistent copies of nearly any kind of data at any time.

The EMC Whitepaper “EMC CLARiiON Database Storage Solutions: Oracle 10g/11g with CLARiiON Storage Replication Consistency” downloadable from EMC’s website has the following explanation of consistency groups in general…

“…Consistent replication operates on multiple LUNs as a set such that if the replication action fails for one member in the set, replication for all other members of the set are canceled or stopped.  Thus the contents of all replicated LUNs in the set are guaranteed to be identical point-in-time replicas of their source and dependent-write consistency is maintained…”

“…With consistent replication, the database does not have to be shut down or put into “hot backup mode.”  Replicates created with SnapView or MV/S (or MV/A, Timefinder, SRDF, Recoverpoint, etc) consistency operations, without first quiescing or halting the application, are restartable point-in-time replicas of the production data and guaranteed to be dependent-write consistent.”

Consistency is important for any application that is writing to multiple LUNs at the same time such as SQL database and log volumes. SnapManager and Replication Manager actually prepare the application by quiescing the database during the snapshot creation process. This process creates “application-consistent” copies which are technically better for recovery compared with “storage-consistent” copies (also known as crash-consistent copies).

So, while I will acknowledge that quiescing the database during a snapshot/replication operation provides the best possible recovery image, that may not be realistic in some scenarios.  The first issue is that the actual operation of quiescing, snapping, checking the image, then pushing an update to a remote storage array takes some time.  Depending on the size of the dataset, this operation can take from several minutes to several hours to complete.  If you have a Recovery Point Objective (RPO) of 5 minutes or less, using either of these tools is pretty much a non-starter.

Another issue is one of application support.  EMC Replication Manager and NetApp SnapManager have very wide support for the most popular operating systems, filesystems, databases, and applications, they certainly don’t support every application.  A very simple example is a Novell Netware file server with a NSS pool/volume spanning multiple LUNs.  Neither NetApp nor EMC have support for Novell Netware in their replication management tools.  While you can certainly replicate all of the LUNs with NetApp SnapManager, SnapManager has no consistency technology built-in to keep the LUNs write-order consistent.  The secondary copy will appear completely corrupt to the Netware server if a recovery is attempted.  Through the use of consistency groups with MirrorView/Async, the replication of each LUN is tracked as a group and all of the LUNs are write-order consistent with each other, keeping the filesystem itself consistent.  You would need to have either array-level consistency technology, or support for Netware in the replication management tool in order to replication such a server..  Unfortunately, NetApp provides neither.

You may have complex applications that consist of Oracle and SQL databases, NTFS filesystems, and application servers running as VMs.  Using array-based consistency groups, you can replicate all of these components simultaneously and keep them all consistent with each other.  This way you won’t have transactions that normally affect two databases end up missing in one of the two after a recovery operation, even if those databases are different technologies (Oracle and MySQL, or PostgreSQL for example).

EMC Storage arrays provide consistency group technology for Snapshots and Replication in Clariion and Symmetrix storage arrays.  In fact, with Symmetrix, consistency groups can span multiple arrays without any host software.  By comparison, NetApp Filers do not have consistency group technology in the array.  Snapshots are taken (for local replicas and for SnapMirror) at the FlexVolume level.  Two FlexVolumes cannot be snapped consistently with each other without SnapManager.

There are a couple workarounds for NetApp users–you can snapshot an aggregate, but that is not recommended by NetApp for most customers, or you can put multiple LUNs in the same FlexVol, but that still limits you to 16TB of data including snapshot reserve space, and both options violate best practices for database designs of keeping data and logs in separate spindles for recovery.  Even with these workarounds, you cannot gain LUN consistency across the two controllers in an HA Filer pair, something the CLARiiON does natively, and can help for load balancing IO across the storage processors.

In general, I recommend that EMC customers use EMC Replication Manager and NetApp customers use SnapManager for the applications that are supported, and for most scenarios.  But when RPO’s are short, or the environment falls outside the support matrix for those tools, consistency groups become the best or only option.

Incidentally, with EMC RecoverPoint, you get the best of both worlds.  CDP or near-CDP replication of data using consistency groups for zero or near-zero RPOs plus application-consistent bookmarks made anytime the database is quiesced.  Recovery is done from the up-to-the-second version of the data, but if that data is not good for any reason, you can roll back to another point in time, including a point-in-time when the database was quiesced (a bookmark).

So, while EMC has, in Replication Manager, an equivalent offering to NetApp’s SnapManager, EMC customers are not required to use it, and in some cases they can achieve better results using array-based consistency technologies.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Newer Entries