« Copies and Backups Revisited | Main | Away »

September 30, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I have similar numbers, slightly higher, but still far lower than you might expect given the hype. Next year it will be much higher when you ask the same question :)

W. Curtis Preston

My numbers for adoption are similar, but they certainly are increasing.

OTOH, I have NOT found dedupe to be cheaper than traditional backup. I think it's BETTER than traditional backup, but I don't see how it can be cheaper. Here are my thoughts and please tell me where I'm in error.

1. The target costs more (a deduped target still costs a little more than a similarly sized tape library filled with tape)
2. The software license costs more. (It costs more to license an intelligent storage device because the ISVs are assigning a higher value to its use.)
3. Dedupe does NOT save money on replication, unless you were already replicating non-deduped backups, which I've never met anyone that does. Dedupe allows you to replace the Iron Mountain truck with replication and makes that replication more affordbable and possible than it would be without replication, but replication is still more expensive than the truck.
4. Dedupe replication requires a system on the other side to receive it, where many people send tapes to Iron Mountain with no unit on the other side. The pay someone like Sungard to have one handy if they ever need it, so they pay for a portion of it. Dedupe and replication requires you to have your own target to replicate to.
5. Many people also want a copy on tape, so we're not even saving money on tape. The whole dedupe system (target in the primary site, license for that, target in the secondary site, replication license, and associated bandwidth) is all incremental cost. How is that cheaper?

I still think it's better, but I never make the argument that it's cheaper.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search The Backup Blog

  • Search