backup survival guide - cdn.ttgtmedia.comcdn.ttgtmedia.com › searchstorage › downloads ›...

Backup Survival Guide

of 26


Contents

Cloud backup versus cloud storage comparison

Windows 8 backup: Microsoft improves built-in backup utilities

NetBackup, Avamar top choices for backup apps again

With cloud, virtualization, scale-out NAS, deduplication, disk and tape – how does a storage manager sleep at night with all these backup methods to choose from? This survival guide can help by featuring independent insight into the best backup applications including cloud, dedupe, virtualization, backup for Windows 8 and more. Also discover the highest rated backup and recovery software systems recently voted for by your peers and which would be the best fit for your company.

Cloud backup versus cloud storage comparison By Marc Staimer Cloud hype has blurred the lines between cloud storage and cloud backup, recovery, and restore (cloud BURR). It's even blurred the lines between cloud storage and storage in the cloud, as well as "sync and share." Many providers like it that way because it gives them a broader appeal in capturing potential customers. But clouding up cloud definitions confuses the market, slows down adoption, and ultimately taints the market for everyone. This tip will offer a cloud BURR versus cloud storage comparison. Defining cloud storage Cloud storage is often, and in many cases deliberately, confused with storage in the cloud. The differences, though, are stark. Storage in the cloud is when users and/or applications access a cloud application across the public Internet or VPN. The cloud application is co-located with local storage, which can be any kind of storage -- DAS, SAN, NAS, or object. The cloud application masks that storage from the user. Cloud storage, on the other hand, is when users and/or applications access the cloud storage directly across the Internet or VPN via Web services APIs. Web services APIs are variations of the REST or SOAP interface that will

http://searchdatabackup.techtarget.com/definition/cloud-backup

http://searchcloudstorage.techtarget.com/definition/cloud-storage

http://searchenterprisewan.techtarget.com/definition/virtual-private-network

http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/direct-attached-storage

http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/storage-area-network-SAN

http://searchstorage.techtarget.com/definition/network-attached-storage

http://searchexchange.techtarget.com/definition/application-program-interface

http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/REST

http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/definition/SOAP

of 26


Contents




soon be standardized as CDMI (Cloud Data Management Interface). Although some will trivialize the differences between cloud storage and storage in the cloud, they are far from trivial. Cloud storage is a different kind of storage than traditional SAN or file storage. Cloud storage delivers functionality and capabilities specifically designed to solve highly demanding storage problems as passive data rapidly scales such as:

• Managing massive amounts of data (up to multiple exabytes) and millions or billions of files or objects in a single storage container.

• Scaling access and performance that grows linearly with capacity. • Making stored data on-demand mobile to geographically distributed

locations. • Ensuring stored data is highly resilient and self-healing, with

enduring persistence for years. • Enabling multiple tenants privately and securely. • Empowering user self-service and policy based

capacity/performance on-demand. • Changing the way storage is bought and paid for by charging only for

the actual storage utilized in arrears vs. charging upfront for all of the storage system's unused raw storage.

• Ending disruptive tech refresh and data migration. Traditional storage systems can solve some of these problems if the amount of data is within its usable capacity, performance and object limits, but few can do even that much. It doesn't take many customers to quickly consume dozens of PBs, billions of objects, and double-digit GBps throughput. Cloud storage capabilities make it an excellent choice for data archiving and as a target for backups. This is why confusion exists in cloud backup versus cloud storage comparisons. Defining cloud backup recovery and restore -- aka Cloud BURR Cloud storage is a cloud-based target storage service from a managed service provider (MSP). It is used in lieu of customers implementing, operating, managing, housing, powering and cooling their own target storage for passive data. This can sometimes be confusing because some backup software can write or backup directly to cloud storage. It can also be

http://searchcloudstorage.techtarget.com/definition/Cloud-Data-Management-Interface

http://searchcloudstorage.techtarget.com/definition/cloud-storage-service

of 26


Contents




recovered and restored from that cloud storage. But the cloud storage service provider is not a cloud BURR service provider. Their expertise is different, and will not provide backup, recovery or restore services. They will not be much help in the recovery of data or disaster recovery. They will not provide consultations on the best ways to stay in backup compliance. These are two distinct and separate types of services. Cloud BURR is a cloud-based application. Data is backed up and kept both locally and in the cloud, where the cloud is one or more private data centers or virtual data centers (IaaS vendors). The local backups store the most recent backup data. The cloud backups store all the data. Local backups are for recovering data from the most recent backups quickly and efficiently. The backups stored in the cloud are for recovering data from less recent backups (or most recent for those sites without local backup storage), disaster recovery scenarios or for recovering data to a completely different site. Cloud BURR stores data on storage in the cloud. Some cloud BURR service providers actually utilize true cloud storage as their backup storage repository. Most do not. Regardless, cloud BURR is the entire package of backup software, backup services, appliances, storage, offsite, recovery and restore services, and DR. Cloud BURR is essentially outsourced backup, recovery and restore services from an MSP. As a result, the cost of cloud BURR (typically priced at X dollars per gigabyte per month) appears to be more expensive than cloud storage, priced typically an order of magnitude less per GB per mo. Unfortunately, this is an apples-to-oranges comparison. To make the comparisons equivalent, cloud storage must add back in the cost of backup software, the cost of storage hardware, the cost of training personnel to manage the backup process, and the cost of the personnel themselves. In those circumstances, if backup is the primary and, in reality, only justifiable reason for putting data in the cloud, then cloud BURR will have a lower TCO, deliver better results and is the better choice. When backup is just one of several reasons for storing data in the cloud (other reasons would include archiving, content distribution, workflow sharing, email archiving, distributed data access, sync and share, and the

http://searchdatabackup.techtarget.com/news/1299979/Data-backup-software-overview

of 26


Contents




like) then cloud storage is the better choice. Or if outsourcing backup is not an option, then cloud storage is the better choice. What is "sync and share"? Sync and share is a cloud application that can use any kind of storage, including cloud storage. Even though many sync-and-share services purport themselves to be cloud storage and cloud BURR, they are neither. In fact, many of their terms and agreements (which most people don't bother to read) specifically state not to use the sync-and-share service for backup. Essentially, sync-and-share services are a replacement service for FTP and NAS shares. It requires installation of client software on every device that will be syncing and sharing. The software allows files to be shared between multiple authorized devices, users, partners, clients and more, while maintaining versioning for a short period of time. But it only maintains a copy of data that the user manually puts into the shared folder. It is not a service that automatically performs all backups in addition to delivering recovery and restores assistance. Sync and share is a useful cloud application that is neither cloud storage nor cloud BURR.

Windows 8 backup: Microsoft improves built-in backup utilities Anyone who has ever tried backing up Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 using the built-in backup utilities knows that Windows Backup (and Windows Server Backup) leave a lot to be desired. Although these backup tools are alive and well in Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012, Microsoft has made some big changes that should make the native backup utilities much more tolerable.

http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/definition/Windows-7

http://searchwindowsserver.techtarget.com/definition/Windows-Server-2008-R2

http://searchenterprisedesktop.techtarget.com/feature/A-first-glimpse-at-Windows-8

of 26


Contents




File History backup The biggest change for Windows 8 backup is the introduction of a new feature called File History. File History replaces a Windows 7 feature known as Previous Versions and allows the easy restoration of files and documents. File History is designed to use an external hard drive as a backup medium, but Microsoft also gives you the option of backing up Windows 8 machines to a network share as well. To enable File History in Windows 8, you must open the Control Panel, and click System and Security, followed by File History. Once the File History applet opens, the first thing that you must do is to specify a location for storing your file history, as shown in Figure A.

Figure A: You must specify a backup location At this point, you can enable File History by clicking the Turn On button. Before doing so however, I recommend clicking on the Advanced Settings

http://searchenterprisedesktop.techtarget.com/tip/The-limitations-of-restoring-files-in-Windows-using-previous-versions

http://searchdatabackup.techtarget.com/tip/Windows-8-backup-Microsoft-improves-built-in-backup-utilities

of 26


Contents




link. As you can see in Figure B, the Advanced Settings page lets you control how frequently Windows saves data, the size of the offline cache and the retention time for previous file versions.

Figure B: You can fine tune the backup through the Advanced Settings dialog box Incidentally, File History is designed to back up the Windows libraries (such as documents, pictures and videos). The File History applet contains an Exclude link that you can use to exclude specific items from being backed up, but there is no option for adding items outside of the libraries to the backup. So what do you do if you need to perform a full system backup? In previous versions of Windows, you would accomplish this by using Windows Backup. I have heard that Windows Backup will exist in Windows 8, but has been deprecated. In the current build, however, I have been unable to find Windows Backup.


of 26


Contents




Besides Windows Backup, Microsoft gives you a few other options for recovering your system. If you open the File History applet, you will see a link to restore personal files. This link is used to recover items that have been backed up as a part of the file history. If you need a more comprehensive recovery, however, then click the Recovery link instead. This opens the Recovery applet shown in Figure C.

Figure C: The Recovery applet gives you multiple options for system recovery One option is called Refresh, which essentially installs a clean copy of Windows. In doing so, Windows will preserve data that is stored in your library and it will retain any apps that were installed from the Windows App Store. All other applications, however, will be deleted (although Windows does create a report telling you which applications have been removed so that you can reinstall them).


of 26


Contents




Another option is Reset, which is designed to return the computer to a pristine state. Choosing Reset removes everything including user files and applications, and installs a clean copy of Windows. Although Reset isn’t exactly a restoration mechanism, a badly corrupted PC could be reset and then the user files could be recovered from File History. What about Windows Server? Things work a little bit differently in Windows Server 2012 (formerly known as Windows Server 8). File History does not seem to exist in Windows Server 2012, but Windows Server Backup is alive and well. Thankfully, Windows Server Backup has evolved quite a bit since its debut in Windows Server 2008. One of the major shortcomings of the current version of Windows Server Backup is that if you use it to back up a Hyper-V host, there is no way to restore individual virtual machines or granular content within a virtual machine. The new version of Windows Server Backup makes it easy to restore an individual virtual machine, as shown in Figure D. If you need to restore files or folders from within a virtual machine, Windows Server Backup 2012 lets you restore a virtual hard disk file to an alternate location and then mount that virtual hard disk outside of the virtual machine. It’s possible to copy files and folders from the newly mounted virtual hard disk to the virtual machine.

http://searchwindowsserver.techtarget.com/definition/Windows-Server-8

of 26


Contents




Figure D: Windows Server Backup 2012 gives you the ability to restore virtual machines Conclusion The built-in backup mechanisms in both Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 have changed considerably since the previous versions. Of course, both of these operating systems are still in beta testing and Microsoft could still conceivably make changes prior to the final release.

NetBackup, Avamar top choices for backup apps again By Rich Castagna Both of last year's top Quality Awards backup applications keep up their winning ways with repeat victories over an expanding field of backup and recovery apps.


of 26


Contents




Symantec Corp.'s NetBackup and EMC Corp.’s Avamar are repeating their victories of last year in the Storage magazine/SearchStorage.com Quality Awards for backup and recovery software. In this seventh Quality Awards for backup apps, the field widened, with seven midrange products joining the familiar five that dominate the enterprise group (see “Products in the survey”). You’d have to go back to 2005 to see that many products in the finals, which indicates the backup software industry is making room for old standbys and upstart apps. Overall scores are also rising, which suggests users are finding higher levels of satisfaction as backup apps evolve to handle data protection needs. For enterprise products, the average overall score of 5.99 is the second highest we’ve seen; among midrange apps, the overall average is 6.10, which tops the 5.65 from last year. Enterprise. Symantec NetBackup built up an overall score of 6.24 with consistent marks in all five rating categories and scores high enough to finish first in three of them. IBM’s Tivoli Storage Manager wasn’t far behind with a 6.13 that was good enough for second; IBM also finished second in the previous survey. EMC NetWorker notched its third consecutive third-place finish with a 6.08. Past three-time winner CommVault Systems Inc.’s Simpana just missed the top three but posted a solid 5.93 fashioned from strong showings in the sales-force competence and product features categories. Hewlett-Packard (HP) Co.’s Data Protector rounded out the group with a 5.57.

of 26


Contents




Midrange backup and recovery overall rankings Midrange. EMC Avamar’s 6.50 rating wasn’t quite up to its record-setting 6.69 from a year ago, but it was enough to squeak by Veeam Software’s Veeam Backup & Replication, which made a splash as a first-time finalist with a 6.45. Avamar prevailed in three categories while Veeam was victorious in the other two. Another new finalist -- Dell Inc.’s AppAssure -- snared third with a 6.33. The ratings for EMC, Veeam and Dell products tallied higher than 6.00 in all five categories. Acronis Inc.’s Acronis Backup & Recovery had a 5.98 for sales-force competence and a 5.91 for product features, but the midrange winner from two years ago still earned an overall 6.12 for fourth. Symantec Backup Exec, another past winner, received an overall score of 5.95.

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/MID_overall_rank.png

of 26


Contents




Sales-force competence

Enterprise sales-force competence rankings Enterprise. You don’t have to twist arms to convince data storage managers they need a backup application, but a savvy sales force always helps. Sales teams must be doing something right, since the cumulative sales-force competence score of 6.14 on this Quality Awards survey is the highest ever (a hair over last year’s 6.12). With top scores for six of seven statements in this category, EMC NetWorker prevailed with a 6.40, followed by CommVault, which led in the remaining category statements and rolled up a 6.21 for second place. Breaking down the numbers

• NetWorker’s highest marks were for having knowledgeable support teams (6.67) and flexible sales reps (6.57).

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/ENT_sales_force.png

of 26


Contents




• CommVault easily won the statement about having sales reps who are knowledgeable about users’ industries (6.52), but it scored even higher for its sales support teams (6.59).

• Licensing is still nettlesome; all products received their lowest ratings for “The vendor’s licensing formula offers good value.”

Midrange sales-force competence rankings Midrange. Among midrange backup and recovery products, the sales experience is also better than ever, with the group averaging a 6.16 for sales-force competence -- far higher than the previous record of 5.73. Veeam, one of the new crop of virtual machine-centric backup applications, sailed to victory in this Quality Awards category with a very impressive 6.75. That was just enough to nudge out EMC Avamar, which netted a nifty 6.72. AppAssure, now part of the Dell family, finished third with a 6.14.

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/MID_sales_force.png

of 26


Contents




Breaking down the numbers

• Veeam had one of the only two 7.00-plus scores in the survey: a 7.06 for offering good value with its licensing scheme.

• The top three (Veeam, EMC and Dell) each scored 6.00 or better on all rating statements.

• Veeam scored highest on four statements, while EMC finished on top for the remaining three.

• All seven products received scores of 6.00 or better for having knowledgeable sales support teams.

Initial product quality

Enterprise initial product quality rankings Enterprise. Scoring highest on six of the seven quality statements, Symantec NetBackup cruised to a category win with a 6.13, outscoring IBM Tivoli Storage Manager (5.87) and EMC NetWorker (5.81). NetBackup’s

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/ENT_prod_quality.png

of 26


Contents




highest statement score was for the efficient use of tape (6.53), but it also did well on one of the bellwether statements in the Quality Awards survey -- “This product delivers good value for the money” -- with a 6.26, which just edged out CommVault’s 6.23 score on that item. Breaking down the numbers

• IBM Tivoli Storage Manager rated highest (5.83) for “The product requires very little daily intervention.”

• Getting software up and running can be tough. The group’s cumulative 5.78 was the lowest category score in the survey, but it was the second highest for this category ever.

• We know tape: After NetBackup’s 6.53 for tape handling, the next highest scores were for IBM (6.42), EMC (6.40) and CommVault (6.32) -- all for tape handling, too.

Midrange initial product quality rankings

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/MID_product_quality.png

of 26


Contents




Midrange. Midrange backup applications are making good first impressions: The cumulative average for all seven products for initial product quality was 6.18, which is a new record for the category. Veeam led the pack with a sterling 6.71, which was enough to overcome two strong contenders: Acronis (6.55) and Dell (6.48). Acronis rated highest on three category statements, while Veeam came out on top for the remaining four. Breaking down the numbers

• The top three finishers -- Veeam, Acronis and Dell -- had the three highest scores ever for midrange products in this rating category.

• Veeam flirted with the 7.00 mark with a 6.90 for ease of installation, but Acronis’ 6.91 tally for not requiring professional services was the top statement score.

• Wizards work: The highest averages for all products were 6.37 for ease of use and 6.34 for ease of installation.

Product features

Enterprise product features rankings

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/ENT_product_feat.png

of 26


Contents




Enterprise. The proverbial rubber hits the road when an application shows off its features. Symantec (6.48) nosed out IBM (6.43) for the top spot in the product features category. The margin was that narrow despite NetBackup winning six category statements to Tivoli Storage Manager’s two. Their scores were remarkably consistent, as were those of third-place winner CommVault (6.14). EMC just missed making the top three with a 6.11 that included only one sub-6.00 score. Breaking down the numbers

• NetBackup got the highest single score (6.66) for being a “complete solution”; IBM and CommVault also fared well on this statement, with a 6.50 and 6.35, respectively.

• IBM led the field on statements related to archiving features (6.42) and interoperability (6.39).

• The best across-the-board score was a 6.26 for “This product’s file system backup features meet my needs.”

• NetBackup and Tivoli Storage Manager were the only products that received 6.00-or-higher ratings on all statements.

Midrange product features rankings

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/MID_product_feat.png

of 26


Contents




Midrange. EMC Avamar continued its duel with Veeam by posting an imposing 6.60 for product features ratings. Veeam’s 6.27 was good enough for second place in the category, although Dell AppAssure was breathing down its neck with a 6.25. The highlight of Avamar’s winning performance was a 7.03 for its backup-to-disk prowess, one of the five statements it won. Dell snagged two statements and Veeam came out on top for the final one. Breaking down the numbers

• EMC Avamar also had the second-highest statement rating, a 6.94 for “This product scales well to meet new requirements.”

• Interoperability is an issue, as the group’s lowest cumulative score was 5.77 for “This product is interoperable with other vendors’ products.” Three of the seven products earned their lowest marks for that statement.

• Dell’s AppAssure secured a pair of 6.43s: one for being a complete solution and the other for its management features. It received only one sub-6.00 mark (for interoperability).

Product reliability

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/ENT_product_reliability.png

of 26


Contents




Enterprise product reliability rankings Enterprise. EMC NetWorker and IBM Tivoli Storage Manager each scored highest on a statement in this category, but Symantec NetBackup topped the group on the other six statements on the way to an overall 6.22 category rating. NetBackup had the highest single statement score (6.68) for its platform/operating system support. It also showed strength for meeting service-level requirements (6.51) and for providing good upgrade guidance (6.33). IBM and EMC finished in a tie for second with a score of 6.03. Breaking down the numbers

• Backup apps are meeting expectations. The highest overall average score was a 6.26 for meeting service requirements; three of the five products had their highest ratings for that statement.

• As a group, the products garnered a 5.90 for reliability; it’s the second highest yet, but well off last year’s 6.21.

• Hands-on still required: The group’s two lowest average scores were for error handling (5.52) and “lights-out” operations (5.69).

of 26


Contents




Midrange product reliability rankings Midrange. Our group of seven midrange applications posted a best-ever 6.06 average score for product reliability, led by EMC Avamar’s 6.55 and supported by notable scores from Dell (6.38) and Veeam (6.31). Avamar rated highest on six of the eight category statements, with Dell AppAssure snaring the other two. EMC and Dell registered 6.00-or-over scores on all the statements in the product reliability category; Veeam and Acronis (which placed fourth), just missed the “all-6.00” club with a 5.90 and a 5.71, respectively, for error handling. Breaking down the numbers

• Avamar’s highest scores were for meeting service requirements (6.86) and providing upgrade guidance (6.83), but platform support (6.75) and needing few unplanned patches (6.69) were also winners.

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/MID_product_reliability.png

of 26


Contents




• Dell netted top grades for nondisruptive updates (6.50) and error handling (6.31), but its highest score was a 6.62 for service requirements.

• Veeam’s third-place finish was built on solid scores for meeting service requirements (6.60), platform support (6.55), as well as a couple of 6.40 counts for unplanned patches and nondisruptive upgrades.

Technical support

Enterprise technical support rankings Enterprise. IBM has established an enviable track record of getting high marks for technical support, frequently finishing in the top three for the category on many Quality Awards surveys. Tivoli Storage Manager’s 6.25 was enough to edge out NetBackup’s 6.20 for the top category spot, highlighted by four statement wins. NetBackup, EMC NetWorker and CommVault Simpana each notched top statement marks, too. Tivoli Storage

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/ENT_tech_support.png

of 26


Contents




Manager was the only product to get all 6.00-plus scores, anchored by a 6.43 for delivering support services as promised. Breaking down the numbers

• Smarts count: IBM was tops for knowledgeable support personnel (6.38) and third-party partners (6.34).

• CommVault scored highest for “Vendor supplies support as contractually specified” (6.61); Symantec NetBackup was the leader for good documentation, while EMC’s statement win came for providing adequate training.

• No surprises: The best full-group statement score was a 6.32 for providing support as contractually specified.

Midrange technical support rankings Midrange. Dell AppAssure (6.41) just missed unseating reigning technical support champ EMC Avamar (6.44) as the two products split statement supremacy -- six for Avamar and two for AppAssure. But there were other excellent technical support category scores, too, with Veeam (6.19) and

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/MID_tech_support.png

of 26


Contents




Acronis (6.04) joining the 6.00 circle. Backup Exec just missed (5.95) to finish fifth, and CA and Microsoft put up their best numbers in this category. Breaking down the numbers

• EMC Avamar’s scores weren’t just high, they were very consistent, ranging from 6.20 (“Support issues rarely require escalation”) to 6.63 (“Vendor supplies support as contractually specified”).

• Dell did very well on problem escalation (6.75), in addition to having knowledgeable partners (6.58) and delivering support as promised (6.50).

• Veeam’s all-6.00 performance was highlighted by a couple of 6.39 marks for supplying support as contractually specified and for having a knowledgeable support staff.

Would you buy it again?

Enterprise: Would you buy it again?

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/ENT_buy_again.png

of 26


Contents




Enterprise. We always close our Quality Awards surveys with one final key question: Given what you know now, would you buy this product again? We’re often surprised when a product that hasn’t fared especially well in the other five rating categories gets a high buy-again percentage. Often, it's the result of users experiencing ups and downs with a product and ultimately deciding it’s best to stick with it than change. CommVault Simpana scored well on this year’s survey, but was outpaced by other enterprise products. CommVault’s users would apparently rather fight than switch, however, with 83% saying they would buy Simpana again.

Midrange: Would you buy it again? Midrange. The midrange buy-again numbers were a bit less surprising, as EMC Avamar came out on top again with 90% ready to make the same purchase again. The overall midrange group average was 74%, a point better than the previous high mark.

http://cdn.ttgtmedia.com/rms/onlineImages/MID_buy_again.png

of 26


Contents




Free resources for technology professionals TechTarget publishes targeted technology media that address your need for information and resources for researching products, developing strategy and making cost-effective purchase decisions. Our network of technology-specific Web sites gives you access to industry experts, independent content and analysis and the Web’s largest library of vendor-provided white papers, webcasts, podcasts, videos, virtual trade shows, research reports and more —drawing on the rich R&D resources of technology providers to address market trends, challenges and solutions. Our live events and virtual seminars give you access to vendor neutral, expert commentary and advice on the issues and challenges you face daily. Our social community IT Knowledge Exchange allows you to share real world information in real time with peers and experts. What makes TechTarget unique? TechTarget is squarely focused on the enterprise IT space. Our team of editors and network of industry experts provide the richest, most relevant content to IT professionals and management. We leverage the immediacy of the Web, the networking and face-to-face opportunities of events and virtual events, and the ability to interact with peers—all to create compelling and actionable information for enterprise IT professionals across all industries and markets. Related TechTarget Websites

backup survival guide - cdn.ttgtmedia.comcdn.ttgtmedia.com › searchstorage › downloads ›...

Documents