If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
Hi,
I am trying to figure out at what point I should be looking into some sort of ILM technology. In reading vendor case studies such as (http://www.netapp.com/library/cs/mustang.pdf), I dont see why I cant just keep adding more disks to my primary storage right now as demand increases... when should I be looking into ILM (at what storage capacity)? How many GigaBytes or TeraBytes before I should consider an ILM strategy? Jon |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
Faeandar wrote: On 7 Aug 2006 13:38:41 -0700, wrote: Hi, I am trying to figure out at what point I should be looking into some sort of ILM technology. In reading vendor case studies such as (http://www.netapp.com/library/cs/mustang.pdf), I dont see why I cant just keep adding more disks to my primary storage right now as demand increases... when should I be looking into ILM (at what storage capacity)? How many GigaBytes or TeraBytes before I should consider an ILM strategy? Jon Generally speaking ILM is used for legal purposes. Retention for things like Intellectual Property and SOX compliance are usually the driving factor. In some cases pure volume is the driver but those are less frequent these days for just the reason you stated. If I can get 500GB SATA drives, move data to those and stop backups, why invest in ILM insfrastructure? You wouldn't. But for pure volume I don't think you can beat tape as the backend medium for cost. Footprint, capacity, heat, power, etc., all are won by tape. Longevity and ease of migration are won by disk. There is no magic dial that says "invest in ILM here" so you've got to make judegement calls. If you want to provide more information there may be people here who can help. ~F That helps somewhat... is there some specific growth rate at which ILM for pure volume makes sense? Should I be worried about 4 TB of data in my primary storage? I keep hearing about so many case studies etc where poeple have applied ILM to help primary storage volume and my own management says I should be doing the same... So I cant understand the disconnect... Jon. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
On 7 Aug 2006 15:13:18 -0700, wrote:
Faeandar wrote: On 7 Aug 2006 13:38:41 -0700, wrote: Hi, I am trying to figure out at what point I should be looking into some sort of ILM technology. In reading vendor case studies such as (http://www.netapp.com/library/cs/mustang.pdf), I dont see why I cant just keep adding more disks to my primary storage right now as demand increases... when should I be looking into ILM (at what storage capacity)? How many GigaBytes or TeraBytes before I should consider an ILM strategy? Jon Generally speaking ILM is used for legal purposes. Retention for things like Intellectual Property and SOX compliance are usually the driving factor. In some cases pure volume is the driver but those are less frequent these days for just the reason you stated. If I can get 500GB SATA drives, move data to those and stop backups, why invest in ILM insfrastructure? You wouldn't. But for pure volume I don't think you can beat tape as the backend medium for cost. Footprint, capacity, heat, power, etc., all are won by tape. Longevity and ease of migration are won by disk. There is no magic dial that says "invest in ILM here" so you've got to make judegement calls. If you want to provide more information there may be people here who can help. ~F That helps somewhat... is there some specific growth rate at which ILM for pure volume makes sense? Should I be worried about 4 TB of data in my primary storage? I keep hearing about so many case studies etc where poeple have applied ILM to help primary storage volume and my own management says I should be doing the same... So I cant understand the disconnect... Jon. Well, the disconnect is usually management that has heard about this new thing that will "save them a ton of money". 4TB of data is huge to some, and a pitance to others. The pure volume is hard to quantify for ILM. What storage type is your 4TB on? How long did it take you to get there? What is your anticipated growth over the next 6-12 months? What does your backup infrastructure consist of (drive classes, number of tapes, backup servers, etc)? What type of data is it (structured, unstructured, IP, e-mail, home directories)? All these things will be used in a formula that will only work for your environment. ~F |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
Faeandar wrote: On 7 Aug 2006 15:13:18 -0700, wrote: Faeandar wrote: On 7 Aug 2006 13:38:41 -0700, wrote: Hi, I am trying to figure out at what point I should be looking into some sort of ILM technology. In reading vendor case studies such as (http://www.netapp.com/library/cs/mustang.pdf), I dont see why I cant just keep adding more disks to my primary storage right now as demand increases... when should I be looking into ILM (at what storage capacity)? How many GigaBytes or TeraBytes before I should consider an ILM strategy? Jon Generally speaking ILM is used for legal purposes. Retention for things like Intellectual Property and SOX compliance are usually the driving factor. In some cases pure volume is the driver but those are less frequent these days for just the reason you stated. If I can get 500GB SATA drives, move data to those and stop backups, why invest in ILM insfrastructure? You wouldn't. But for pure volume I don't think you can beat tape as the backend medium for cost. Footprint, capacity, heat, power, etc., all are won by tape. Longevity and ease of migration are won by disk. There is no magic dial that says "invest in ILM here" so you've got to make judegement calls. If you want to provide more information there may be people here who can help. ~F That helps somewhat... is there some specific growth rate at which ILM for pure volume makes sense? Should I be worried about 4 TB of data in my primary storage? I keep hearing about so many case studies etc where poeple have applied ILM to help primary storage volume and my own management says I should be doing the same... So I cant understand the disconnect... Jon. Well, the disconnect is usually management that has heard about this new thing that will "save them a ton of money". 4TB of data is huge to some, and a pitance to others. The pure volume is hard to quantify for ILM. What storage type is your 4TB on? How long did it take you to get there? What is your anticipated growth over the next 6-12 months? What does your backup infrastructure consist of (drive classes, number of tapes, backup servers, etc)? What type of data is it (structured, unstructured, IP, e-mail, home directories)? All these things will be used in a formula that will only work for your environment. ~F Our 4TB of data are on two FAS960Cs... we are expected to grow 50% this year (year end we will have 6TB) and next year we expect to add another 4TB. We just started growing rapidly due to the nature of construction projects being taken on, and they mostly consist of engineering and design documents... all unstructured... actually, depending on how you look at it, 70% unstructured and 30% email. We have backup (tape) hanging off of the netapp directly and use veritas to move stuff into backup (bi weekly I beleive, but I dont manage that). I spend about 15K per TB of data and our current solution cost about $450K. PS: One area where I get dinged all the time is the backup restore times... management says I should do it faster and tell me I should be looking into ILM for that. Also, they cringe whenever I go and put a PO in for another TB of data. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
Faeandar wrote: On 7 Aug 2006 15:51:40 -0700, wrote: Our 4TB of data are on two FAS960Cs... we are expected to grow 50% this year (year end we will have 6TB) and next year we expect to add another 4TB. We just started growing rapidly due to the nature of construction projects being taken on, and they mostly consist of engineering and design documents... all unstructured... actually, depending on how you look at it, 70% unstructured and 30% email. We have backup (tape) hanging off of the netapp directly and use veritas to move stuff into backup (bi weekly I beleive, but I dont manage that). I spend about 15K per TB of data and our current solution cost about $450K. PS: One area where I get dinged all the time is the backup restore times... management says I should do it faster and tell me I should be looking into ILM for that. Also, they cringe whenever I go and put a PO in for another TB of data. Well, since the 960's will expand to 64TB you've got plenty of grow room. For backup performance, if you don;t manage it why do you get dinged? And how is it being done today? Volume level backups? Qtree level? Any replication involved (snapmirror or snapvault)? ILM is not a fix for any problem, period. It is a conglomerate of products/programs/scripts that automate a business process. The business process is the fix. Never lose sight of that and your battle is assured. Does your business have a process for long term retention? Data destruction? E-mail compliance? Whatever it happens to be, ILM can wrap some automation around it but the process and requirements have to exist first. Your management needs an education and you are going to have to do it. But first you need to educate yourself, and this was a good start. Take a look at some of the ILM procucts out there. See what they do. You'll find ILM is just HSM rebranded with a few more bells and whistles attached. Information Lifecycle Management, the name alone should fire off some bells and sirens for you to deal with your management. The flip side is ILM is a great resume builder. However, I'd bet that if you did due diligence, set your requirements, selected a vendor, then got a quote, management would be happy to sign PO's for TB's of storage for the next 2-3 years. Don;t forget all the hidden costs of ILM; it's not just the software. Tape, disk, switch ports, FC ports, whatever. Make sure you add it all in. ~F Thanks... well I get dinged because its my data thats increasing the backup restore window times... and the backup guys say I have too much data to be restored... In any event, I understand your arguments. One other question... IN our company, overall we must have over 100TB of data (I just manage 4TB of that)... I cant help but imagine that someone should be consolidating all of this... I will raise this to management, but before I do so, do folks here think this is a big problem just in our company or are others out there like this... ? How many others have a similar situation? Thanks Jon. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
wrote:
Faeandar wrote: On 7 Aug 2006 15:51:40 -0700, wrote: Our 4TB of data are on two FAS960Cs... we are expected to grow 50% this year (year end we will have 6TB) and next year we expect to add another 4TB. We just started growing rapidly due to the nature of construction projects being taken on, and they mostly consist of engineering and design documents... all unstructured... actually, depending on how you look at it, 70% unstructured and 30% email. We have backup (tape) hanging off of the netapp directly and use veritas to move stuff into backup (bi weekly I beleive, but I dont manage that). I spend about 15K per TB of data and our current solution cost about $450K. PS: One area where I get dinged all the time is the backup restore times... management says I should do it faster and tell me I should be looking into ILM for that. Also, they cringe whenever I go and put a PO in for another TB of data. Well, since the 960's will expand to 64TB you've got plenty of grow room. For backup performance, if you don;t manage it why do you get dinged? And how is it being done today? Volume level backups? Qtree level? Any replication involved (snapmirror or snapvault)? ILM is not a fix for any problem, period. It is a conglomerate of products/programs/scripts that automate a business process. The business process is the fix. Never lose sight of that and your battle is assured. Does your business have a process for long term retention? Data destruction? E-mail compliance? Whatever it happens to be, ILM can wrap some automation around it but the process and requirements have to exist first. Your management needs an education and you are going to have to do it. But first you need to educate yourself, and this was a good start. Take a look at some of the ILM procucts out there. See what they do. You'll find ILM is just HSM rebranded with a few more bells and whistles attached. Information Lifecycle Management, the name alone should fire off some bells and sirens for you to deal with your management. The flip side is ILM is a great resume builder. However, I'd bet that if you did due diligence, set your requirements, selected a vendor, then got a quote, management would be happy to sign PO's for TB's of storage for the next 2-3 years. Don;t forget all the hidden costs of ILM; it's not just the software. Tape, disk, switch ports, FC ports, whatever. Make sure you add it all in. ~F Thanks... well I get dinged because its my data thats increasing the backup restore window times... and the backup guys say I have too much data to be restored... In any event, I understand your arguments. One other question... IN our company, overall we must have over 100TB of data (I just manage 4TB of that)... I cant help but imagine that someone should be consolidating all of this... I will raise this to management, but before I do so, do folks here think this is a big problem just in our company or are others out there like this... ? How many others have a similar situation? Thanks Jon. Not sure I understand. Your business unit (you) creates only 4% of the company's data and YOU are under the gun to create an ILM strategy? I don't think you'll find many others in that situation. Does the remaining 96% have an ILM strategy? Also I can't help noticing a disconnect. In addition to ILM, your management is asking for faster backups but you think consolidation (that would probably lengthen backup times) is needed. What gives? If I may make a suggestion try to learn more about ILM (BTW is NOT a technology). The EMC site is a good place where to start, not because they are necessarily the best, but they have just about every peace to implement an ILM strategy, and a rich Web site. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
mapicella wrote: wrote: Faeandar wrote: On 7 Aug 2006 15:51:40 -0700, wrote: Our 4TB of data are on two FAS960Cs... we are expected to grow 50% this year (year end we will have 6TB) and next year we expect to add another 4TB. We just started growing rapidly due to the nature of construction projects being taken on, and they mostly consist of engineering and design documents... all unstructured... actually, depending on how you look at it, 70% unstructured and 30% email. We have backup (tape) hanging off of the netapp directly and use veritas to move stuff into backup (bi weekly I beleive, but I dont manage that). I spend about 15K per TB of data and our current solution cost about $450K. PS: One area where I get dinged all the time is the backup restore times... management says I should do it faster and tell me I should be looking into ILM for that. Also, they cringe whenever I go and put a PO in for another TB of data. Well, since the 960's will expand to 64TB you've got plenty of grow room. For backup performance, if you don;t manage it why do you get dinged? And how is it being done today? Volume level backups? Qtree level? Any replication involved (snapmirror or snapvault)? ILM is not a fix for any problem, period. It is a conglomerate of products/programs/scripts that automate a business process. The business process is the fix. Never lose sight of that and your battle is assured. Does your business have a process for long term retention? Data destruction? E-mail compliance? Whatever it happens to be, ILM can wrap some automation around it but the process and requirements have to exist first. Your management needs an education and you are going to have to do it. But first you need to educate yourself, and this was a good start. Take a look at some of the ILM procucts out there. See what they do. You'll find ILM is just HSM rebranded with a few more bells and whistles attached. Information Lifecycle Management, the name alone should fire off some bells and sirens for you to deal with your management. The flip side is ILM is a great resume builder. However, I'd bet that if you did due diligence, set your requirements, selected a vendor, then got a quote, management would be happy to sign PO's for TB's of storage for the next 2-3 years. Don;t forget all the hidden costs of ILM; it's not just the software. Tape, disk, switch ports, FC ports, whatever. Make sure you add it all in. ~F Thanks... well I get dinged because its my data thats increasing the backup restore window times... and the backup guys say I have too much data to be restored... In any event, I understand your arguments. One other question... IN our company, overall we must have over 100TB of data (I just manage 4TB of that)... I cant help but imagine that someone should be consolidating all of this... I will raise this to management, but before I do so, do folks here think this is a big problem just in our company or are others out there like this... ? How many others have a similar situation? Thanks Jon. Not sure I understand. Your business unit (you) creates only 4% of the company's data and YOU are under the gun to create an ILM strategy? I don't think you'll find many others in that situation. Does the remaining 96% have an ILM strategy? Also I can't help noticing a disconnect. In addition to ILM, your management is asking for faster backups but you think consolidation (that would probably lengthen backup times) is needed. What gives? If I may make a suggestion try to learn more about ILM (BTW is NOT a technology). The EMC site is a good place where to start, not because they are necessarily the best, but they have just about every peace to implement an ILM strategy, and a rich Web site. We have grown quite chaotic and our growth has been ad-hoc with many regional offices (typically near the major customers)... we acquired a lot of small consulting shops - so thats why we have so many distributed sites... Our dept is however the main IT shop in the company... no the others do not have one yet as well... we are learning as we go - but we are paying a lot of money on our data... and I dont think the remote distrbuted data is helping... I am sure I should first bring their data in centrally and I think I need to suggest that first... Regarding faster backups - this is where I am led to beleive ILM couldve helped (yes as you say, it is not a product but best practises)... I guess to refine my original question, should I propose something like this: 1. consolidate and 2. buy a product that lets us move data from the netapp filers to some cheaper storage for older data Jon |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
At what point is ILM needed?
wrote: mapicella wrote: wrote: Faeandar wrote: On 7 Aug 2006 15:51:40 -0700, wrote: Our 4TB of data are on two FAS960Cs... we are expected to grow 50% this year (year end we will have 6TB) and next year we expect to add another 4TB. We just started growing rapidly due to the nature of construction projects being taken on, and they mostly consist of engineering and design documents... all unstructured... actually, depending on how you look at it, 70% unstructured and 30% email. We have backup (tape) hanging off of the netapp directly and use veritas to move stuff into backup (bi weekly I beleive, but I dont manage that). I spend about 15K per TB of data and our current solution cost about $450K. PS: One area where I get dinged all the time is the backup restore times... management says I should do it faster and tell me I should be looking into ILM for that. Also, they cringe whenever I go and put a PO in for another TB of data. Well, since the 960's will expand to 64TB you've got plenty of grow room. For backup performance, if you don;t manage it why do you get dinged? And how is it being done today? Volume level backups? Qtree level? Any replication involved (snapmirror or snapvault)? ILM is not a fix for any problem, period. It is a conglomerate of products/programs/scripts that automate a business process. The business process is the fix. Never lose sight of that and your battle is assured. Does your business have a process for long term retention? Data destruction? E-mail compliance? Whatever it happens to be, ILM can wrap some automation around it but the process and requirements have to exist first. Your management needs an education and you are going to have to do it. But first you need to educate yourself, and this was a good start. Take a look at some of the ILM procucts out there. See what they do. You'll find ILM is just HSM rebranded with a few more bells and whistles attached. Information Lifecycle Management, the name alone should fire off some bells and sirens for you to deal with your management. The flip side is ILM is a great resume builder. However, I'd bet that if you did due diligence, set your requirements, selected a vendor, then got a quote, management would be happy to sign PO's for TB's of storage for the next 2-3 years. Don;t forget all the hidden costs of ILM; it's not just the software. Tape, disk, switch ports, FC ports, whatever. Make sure you add it all in. ~F Thanks... well I get dinged because its my data thats increasing the backup restore window times... and the backup guys say I have too much data to be restored... In any event, I understand your arguments. One other question... IN our company, overall we must have over 100TB of data (I just manage 4TB of that)... I cant help but imagine that someone should be consolidating all of this... I will raise this to management, but before I do so, do folks here think this is a big problem just in our company or are others out there like this... ? How many others have a similar situation? Thanks Jon. Not sure I understand. Your business unit (you) creates only 4% of the company's data and YOU are under the gun to create an ILM strategy? I don't think you'll find many others in that situation. Does the remaining 96% have an ILM strategy? Also I can't help noticing a disconnect. In addition to ILM, your management is asking for faster backups but you think consolidation (that would probably lengthen backup times) is needed. What gives? If I may make a suggestion try to learn more about ILM (BTW is NOT a technology). The EMC site is a good place where to start, not because they are necessarily the best, but they have just about every peace to implement an ILM strategy, and a rich Web site. We have grown quite chaotic and our growth has been ad-hoc with many regional offices (typically near the major customers)... we acquired a lot of small consulting shops - so thats why we have so many distributed sites... Our dept is however the main IT shop in the company... no the others do not have one yet as well... we are learning as we go - but we are paying a lot of money on our data... and I dont think the remote distrbuted data is helping... I am sure I should first bring their data in centrally and I think I need to suggest that first... Regarding faster backups - this is where I am led to beleive ILM couldve helped (yes as you say, it is not a product but best practises)... I guess to refine my original question, should I propose something like this: 1. consolidate and 2. buy a product that lets us move data from the netapp filers to some cheaper storage for older data Jon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
At what point is it overkill for the particular game I'm using? | Doc | Ati Videocards | 4 | July 23rd 05 03:48 AM |
At what point is it overkill for the particular game I'm using? | Doc | Matrox Videocards | 4 | July 23rd 05 03:48 AM |
At what point is it overkill for the particular game I'm using? | Doc | Nvidia Videocards | 4 | July 23rd 05 03:48 AM |
Xbox360, PS3 : announcements of the death of PC gaming seem premature........ | mace | Nvidia Videocards | 10 | June 30th 05 08:25 PM |
Floating point format for Intel math coprocessors | Dave Hansen | Intel | 26 | July 6th 03 10:22 AM |