Every time I speak in front of customers about Avamar, I emphasize how much faster it is, and how much less data it sends over the network, than competitive products.
In the end, I think most people end up believing that Avamar can reduce their network traffic by 99% or better.
But I think a lot of people are skeptical about my claim that backups are much faster. So here is another data point that I can offer as "proof". All end user names have been removed to protect the innocent, and a huge shout out to Keith Lawrence for putting the data together.
The comparison is to TSM. The datasets, clients, and so on, are identical in each case. Basically we ran the TSM client and the Avamar client back to back, and had a look at how much data each sent, and how long it took to complete the backup. There are two amazing things here: one, TSM only does progressive incrementals (no full backups) and it still gets smoked by Avamar in terms of how much data is transmitted. Two, again, these TSM backups are not full backups, but they still take much longer than Avamar.
Here are the results:
|TSM Data Sent||Avamar Data Sent||TSM Elapsed Time||Avamar Elapsed Time|
|Day 1||148.79 MB||15.36 MB||17:45.0||9:36.0|
|Day 2||149.41 MB||14.54 MB||37:58.0||9:35.0|
|Day 3||156.56 MB||14.70 MB||39:26.0||9:37.0|
So, despite being matched against an incremental backup, Avamar still manages a 90% improvement in amount of data transmitted (and, correspondingly, network utilization). And it still manages to take approximately 25% of the time to finish a backup.
Avamar. Nitrous for your backup.