« Relabeling Tapes in NetWorker | Main | TSM Scalability (and the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow) »

August 12, 2009


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

Mike Garland

Hang on, Scott. Backup is one technology that gives great benefits with scale when deduplication is included. Even on small accounts deduplication cuts the data size in half. And larger accounts can see 10x or more, particularly with block level backup.

Further, thin backups eliminate the need to backup full data sets ‘over the weekend’ since just changed blocks are backed up.

Do we have a way to go? Yes but we are seeing progress.

Mike Garland
DataPreserve Online Backup http://www.datapreserve.com

Scott Waterhouse

While that is true, what we have done is lowered our marginal cost of backup, we have not achieved economies of scale.

What I mean is that say I have 50 TB to back up. I might do this with tape for $300k in initial infrastructure. With deduplication, I might get by with $300k in initial infrastructure too (albeit with much higher performance and service levels than the tape solution).

But assume I haven't sized the solution for growth.

With tape, if I add a TB of data to my source, I now need to buy another tape drive. And another one for every 5 (?) TB after the initial 50.

With disk, if I add another TB of data, same thing.

For every TB I add to my source, I have to add capacity to my target in a linear fashion. That fashion might be .5x, but it is not like it becomes .2x at 100 TB.

If anything, I see a jump in costs again as I need to acquire an additional robot or additional dedup head.

So we are winning the battle--reducing costs--but losing the war because those costs continue to maintain a linear relationship with the cost/capacity of the source data.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search The Backup Blog

  • Search