 |
|
 |
 |
I'm reading a great book: "A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's Purpose" by Eckhart Tolle.
No, it's not your typical traditional IT or business book and, yes, it's on the Oprah Book Club list, but don't let these two facts keep you from reading it. Trust me. It's a great read. I'm only half-way through it and it's already affected how I view things in my personal and business lives. Hence this blog.
I can't tell you how many times over the past few years I've run into companies that have really great technologies but can't seem to get out of their own way to make a real business out of them or really drive them to their full potential. I've also encountered too many companies that are hyper-focused on what their competitors are doing or saying about them and as a result miss out on market and business opportunities.
Read Tolle's book and you'll learn that our egos may have a lot to do with both scenarios.
Do companies have egos? Absolutely. Companies take on the egos of the people who run them and the employees that comprise them. Companies get stuck on "the technology behind the product" because of their egos. Companies take on a defensive posture about competitive technologies or competitors because of ...yep, their egos. Companies that don't get this and let their individual (or collective) egos lead them, end up ultimately limiting themselves, says Tolle.
Let's put this in storage terms. A company that spends its time in a defensive posture about its de-dupe ratios or de-dupe process, for example, ultimately ["limits itself and keeps it from taking effective action]." Similarly, a company that spends the majority of its time saying how good its technology is (and spending all its dollar resources there), limits itself. It misses out on opportunities to improve, promote and leverage its technology. This company doesn't change. It doesn't evolve.
I won't go into why our egos do this and how to get them to stop doing it; I'll leave that up to you to discover when you read the book. Still on the fence?
Consider the following (excerpted from Tolle's book):"The most rigid structures, the most impervious to change, will collapse first." And ask yourself, know any companies like that?
For some time I've been saying that data de-duplication is one of the most important--if not the most important--technologies to hit the data protection market in years. (Of course, without the advent of SATA drives, we'd likely be having a different conversation, or at least the timing of this conversation would be very different ... pushed out, way out. But that's a separate discussion.)
So, is it really any surprise, then, that the press has gone bananas over de-dupe? No, I don't think so. The media loves to "dish"--and the storage media is no exception. But in the land of storage, the opportunities are few and far between. So, what better to "dish" about than who's dumping whose de-dupe technology for whose? Let's face it: It is as close to Brad-Pitt-dumping-Jennifer-Anniston-for-Angelina-Jolie as this industry is ever going to get. Therefore, when I read two recent Press articles this afternoon about EMC's supposed split with FalconStor for Quantum, I could only chuckle.
Whether the rumor is true or not (no comment here), readers need to remember:
- De-dupe is a feature not a product. It is just one feature--albeit an important one--of disk-based platforms. This puts vendors that offer de-dupe in the driver seat right now, but over time, as de-dupe becomes widely available, vendors will have to look to other features to differentiate itself. Now, this could mean offering multiple types of de-dupe or global de-dupe support or something entirely different from de-dupe.
- De-dupe is not the market; disk-based backup (or data protection) is. The disk backup market is still emerging. Just look at our recent Research (Data Protection Research, 2007), the majority of users (53%) are still using a mix of disk and tape, and a non-significant amount are still in all tape environments. The point: There's plenty of opportunity for mulitple vendors.
- Data volumes are growing exponentially. This has implications for primary storage, secondary storage (e.g.,backup), and near-line storage (e.g., archive). De-dupe will play in all three areas.
- One of data de-duplication's hidden jewels is the effect it can have on remote replication--something you will be hearing a lot more about going forward from many vendors.
- Choice is a good thing--not just within a vendor's own portfolio (e.g., multiple types of de-dupe) but also among vendors.
- Ultimately, what will make or break a specific technology is whether it works or doesn't. The next six to 12 months will be huge from this respect.
I have some specific issues with these articles, but I'll leave that discussion to if or when an EMC/Quantum deal is actually announced. Don't want to add to the rumor mill.
Before I went on vacation, I had a string of emails from some press folks about a vendor's recent de-dupe announcement. That vendor was FalconStor. The million-dollar question (as the press saw it): Was this a "hybrid" de-dupe announcement?
The short answer is "no". What FalconStor announced was a post-process approach to de-dupe that allows users to begin post-processing de-duping earlier. This means that users do not have to wait until the entire backup job has been written to disk before starting to de-dupe it. Bottom line: It gives users more flexibility to meet specific backup SLAs than if the process has to wait until the backup job is 100% complete before starting to de-dupe. But it is not a "hybrid" de-dupe approach. It is not a mix (or blend) of in-line and post-process. It is more flexible post-processing. Quantum also offers a similar type of capability.
A true "hybrid" de-dupe capability, I contend, would toggle transparently back and forth between the two according to end-user data environments and requirements. Similar to how a hybrid car leverages both gas and electricity for optimal efficiency. The challenge, of course, is finding that right balance ... determining when/where it makes sense to do the de-duping in-line and when/where it makes sense to do the de-duping post-process from a performance, capacity and, yes, cost perspective. No quick answer.
There are currently no solutions on the market today that provide end-users with this level of flexibility. Proponents of some in-line solutions may say there is no need for such a technology, especially if they're meeting end-users' performance requirements. But what about tomorrow's requirements? Post-process de-dupe providers appear more "accepting" of the inevitability of such a approach -- and the potential benefits of combining the two in some fashion. Of course, post-process vendors are also playing catch-up to in-line (in terms of end-user adoption), which affects perceptions and actions -- and, yes, explains why these vendors are using the word "hybrid" to describe what they do. They're smartly riding the in-line wave.
Unfortunately, the press often gets caught up in this wave. This means end-users need to be smart and continue to do their homework!
I'm heading out on vacation. Not good timing from a getting-my-blog-going perspective, I know. While I'm gone, check out a couple of articles I wrote recently on the topic of persistent data. They explain why growing volumes of this type of data are driving more and more IT administrators to "tiers" (and some even to "tears"). I'll check back in when I return. Costa Rica awaits!
How unbelievably fitting (ironic actually) that my new ESG Blog – Driven to Tiers – debuts right after one of the biggest Super Bowl upsets in the history of the game. Really, I couldn’t have come up with a better segue if I had tried. Driven to tears indeed.
I need to vent: My husband and I are big Patriots fans (are there any other kind?), but we live in the South now. Anti-Yankee territory. Yes, the South stills views the world in Union-Confederate terms. It’s hard to believe, I know, but it’s true. I’m a Yankee. Didn’t think I’d ever be called that … Remember, I’m from Boston. Red Sox fine. Yankee never.
Anyway, so we were invited to a Super Bowl party to watch two northern (a.k.a. Yankee) teams play, I didn’t know if I wanted to go. Just didn’t think it would be much fun. But little did I know that 22 of the 26 guests who had been invited had become huge Giants fans and Patriots haters overnight. And I mean haters. Actually, I’ve never seen anything like it – and I’ve gone to Falcons and Braves home games when they’ve played Boston teams! Entirely different picture.
Reasons for hating the Patriots ranged from the “Belichik cheating incident” to Brady’s illegitimate child to “they’re smug.” Come on. It’s just plain jealousy. Again, I’m not knocking the Giants for winning (they played a better game than we did), but I am knocking these types of fans.
I see this type of thing in the storage industry all the time. A dominant player gets badgered while a struggling company receives storage awards (more on this in a future blog) for products that aren’t even real contenders yet. Now, I’m not saying that the leading guys are always right or that their products are better. What I am saying, though, is that it’s sometimes just a lot easier being the underdog.
Disk-based backup (D2D) providers constantly ask me for one stat: What percentage of backup or recovery operations from tape fail?
I really hate answering this question. Not because I don't have a stat handy, but because it's a loaded question and the "answer" is really irrelevant. After all, how many end-users do you know who actually monitor the success and/or failure rates of their backup and recovery operations? And the answer doesn't matter if you're talking disk or tape backup.
In fact, we estimate that only 2% of end-users are, even though the reporting technologies have been around for quite sometime. Standalone reporting tools are available from companies like Bocada and WysDM, and many backup and recovery software providers enable basic monitoring and reporting.
So, let's face it, vendors that ask this question are really just looking for more fuel to fire the disk-versus-tape backup debate, aren't they? Absolutely. But to these vendors, I ask: What tape vs. disk debate? End-users have known for years that their traditional backup and recovery methods are grossly inadequate. They know that if they need to recover data from tape in a recovery or outage situation, well, frankly, they're likely in big doo doo. So, again, what difference does it make if you say that 20% or 30% or 60% of all backup and recovery operations from tape fail?
For argument's sake, let's just say that the failure rate is only 5%. Sounds good, right? No, not if mission-critical data is left unprotected. And that's why technologies like CDP and near-CDP are so important. With CDP, it doesn't matter what the failure rate is because you're continually capturing changes so there shouldn't be any data loss.
So, why play this statistical card at all? ESG Research shows that end-users are ready to make significant changes to their data protection environments. They are implementing disk-based backup technologies such as VTL and near-line disk in droves. Why? Not because disk is any more "reliable" than tape, but because it is a heck of a lot more efficient for recovery.
A better question might be the following: How quickly can you recover data in a failure situation?
Forgive me fellow bloggers for I am delinquent. It has been several weeks since my last blog.
What's my excuse: vacation, that is, if you can really call it a vacation. I came down with a bad case of poison oak on day 3 of a 10-day whirlwind see-everyone-you-can return trip to New England. Spent the rest of the time itching and driving back and forth between MA and NH to the tune of 1,300 miles. Oh, and did I mention, I stayed with relatives for much of the stay? Enough said.
So, while the "land" portion of my vacation was really anything but relaxing, I was able to find a few hours of peace on the flight to and from Boston. I started reading a great book: "The World Is Flat" by Thomas L. Friedman. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend picking up a copy. It truly does, as the back of the book jacket says, "[make] you see things in a new way."
It even made me look at data protection differently -- in particular, outsourcing. We all know what happened to the SSPs (storage service providers) a few years back. And backup outsourcing hasn't fared all that much better. Adoption has been slow, to say the least. But if you read "The World Is Flat," you'll see that all fingers point to a world in which outsourcing of all types plays a vital role. It's a byproduct of the "flattening" world in which we live.
While a few companies have had some success with their versions of outsourcing, the vast majority have not. In the data protection world, for example, Asigra, an emerging provider of backup software for remote offices (as well as mobile users and desktops) has watched its sales grow solidly from year to year, thanks to a strong Service Provider business. Arsenal Digital Solutions, a provider of on-line backup and storage management services, is nearing the 1,000th customer mark. And what about Iron Mountain? It lent credibility to the online backup market when it doled out $50M for backup outsourcer LiveVault last December.
Nonetheless, our Research shows that end-users are still hesitant to "hand over" control of their IT environments to third-party outsourcers, though we are seeing increasing interest in software outsourcing. Is it user hesitance that is limiting the growth of this market or is it just another case of bad timing?
My guess is that it's the latter. Not only does the speed at which the world is flattening challenge high-tech companies to keep pace, but it also challenges their customers, our end-users, to "adapt." As Friedman writes (about the high-tech industry in general, not the outsourcing market in particular): "And that is why the great challenge for our time will be to absorb these changes in ways that do not overwhelm people or leave them behind."
In other words, the concept of outsourcing needs to be presented in a way in which the many benefits are made obvious and the "perceived" drawbacks (i.e., the fear of losing control) are minimized. End users didn't get the "SSP" concept four or five years ago, but it looks like they're starting to. In a flattened world, outsourcing may very well be "inevitable" and "unavoidable."
Timing is everything. Just a day after I posted a blog about the convergence of the data protection and security worlds, the New York Times reported a deal between RSA, a leading security provider, and EMC or another big-name vendor was imminent. One day later (last Friday), the deal between RSA and EMC was made public: EMC is to acquire RSA to the tune of $2+ billion. (Btw, that other vendor was Symantec.)
Okay, not to toot my own horn (okay, well, maybe a little), but if this deal doesn't prove my point (i.e., that the converging of the security and data protection markets is inevitable), nothing will. My guess is that a lot more folks talking about data protection and security in the same breath going forward (even more than I expected when I first posted the blog). Good or bad, when EMC talks, the industry listen.
It’s ironic really. We talk about better “protecting” our data against virus attacks, storage systems failures, or even devastating acts of nature like hurricanes, but we do comparatively little to “protect” the large volumes of data that are sitting “exposed” in the back of tape-vaulting trucks, on employee laptops, or on hard drives being re-tired or re-purposed, etc.
We know the risks -- heck, they are spotlighted in the news each week -- so why aren't we doing more to tackle this problem head-on? It's a very good question, especially when you consider that many of the companies making the headlines with security breaches have some of the most "state-of-the-art" data centers. And they're typically the "early adopters" of technologies. Bottom line: If they can't keep confidential data, well, confidential, who can? Maybe it's an issue of responsibility? Under whose jurisdiction does information security fall? Who monitors what? Maybe it's an issue of budget? ESG's recent Research Report "Protecting Confidential Data" addresses these issues and a whole bunch of others, and, in doing so, identifies some of the potential gaps within organizations that ultimately can leave sensitive data "exposed."
I argue that one of the keys to closing the gap is to start thinking of data protection and security under the same umbrella. The two are clearly beginning to converge. That means you're going to see a lot more data protection companies not only talking about security but building security features (e.g., encryption, WORM, authentication, etc.) into their data protection products. It's inevitable ... It's necessary.
Using high-end disk array equipped with low-cost high-density Fibre Channel drives as a backup target, as my colleague Tony Asaro recently put it, would be like ordering a Big Mac at Ruth's Chris and paying $50 for it. Nonetheless, it is certainly an idea worth pondering. After all, the idea of using a midrange disk array for backup purposes was just as (or even more so) foreign a few years ago. But the advent of cheap ATA/SATA disk drives quickly changed the mindset of end-users. So, why couldn't the availability of low-cost high-density Fibre Channel drives similarly change, or broaden, the role of high-end disk arrays?
What do I think? Well, my gut feeling is that organizations will be very hesitant to leverage costly, specialized high-end disk arrays for backup purposes. Now, that doesn't mean I think no one will, but I don't think the response will be great enough to define a whole new market for this class of system.
Organizations may temporarily use these arrays as backup targets, but my guess is they'll continue to leverage other lower-end disk products or VTL for backup purposes. It just makes economical sense. I argue that it's the cost of the software that runs on these platforms not the hard drives themselves that make using high-end disk arrays as backup targets cost-prohibitive.
A more likely scenario would be for organizations to leverage low-cost Fibre Channel drives to build tiered storage environments, matching drive types to the value of the data that is being written. The more critical the data, the higher-performing drive used. The less-critical, the lowering-performing drive used. This makes perfect business sense.
As for the argument that leveraging high-end arrays for backup addresses (potential) scaling issues with currently available disk-based backup targets, including VTL, I argue that this is a non-issue right now. VTL products from vendors such as Diligent, EMC, HP, and Sepaton, etc., scale into the petabyte range, and data de-duplication technology (available from Diligent and Sepaton) further extends the "scale" of these products by only storing "unique" data. Clustering archictects (such as Sepaton's) also allow end-users to easily scale their VTL environments according to data requirements. Bottom line: I have yet to run into an end-user who has voiced any concerns about the scalability of existing disk-based products.
So, Mr. and Mrs. End-User, what do you think? Would you use your high-end disk arrays for backup? I'd be interested to hear what you have to say.
|
|
|
