News

11/26/2008
09:33 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

Solving The DR Testing Problem

It seems like almost every time I see a report on disaster recovery plan (DRP) testing, there are typically 50% of the respondents that either don't test their DR plan or don't test it frequently enough for the plan to be worthwhile. How can we solve this?

It seems like almost every time I see a report on disaster recovery plan (DRP) testing, there are typically 50% of the respondents that either don't test their DR plan or don't test it frequently enough for the plan to be worthwhile. How can we solve this?Most IT professionals will readily admit that they know they should test their DR plans, so it's not a matter of convincing. Most IT professionals are stretched too thin and the day-to-day responsibilities of the job don't allow for time away to adequately test the plan. Finally, on the list of things you can't wait to do today, testing your DR Plan typically lands near the bottom. As is always the case when you're asked to do more with less, it's software that should come to the rescue.

The first step is to make the DR testing process easier to start and complete. Most storage systems today can replicate data to a similar system at a remote site. Some, like NetApp, 3PAR, and Compellent, will allow you to leverage writeable snapshots in those DR locations. When the time comes to test the DR readiness, a snapshot of the storage at the replicated site can be taken, and that snapshot can then be mounted to a series of test servers so the tests can begin almost instantly. All the while real replication continues, ensuring the DR site is kept up to date in case a real disaster occurs during testing.

Server virtualization has a role to play as well. Server virtualization lowers the hard costs associated with equipping the DR site and makes it easier to spin up additional servers during the DR function. Products like VMware SRM take this a step further by automating the failover process and reserving resource allocation at the DR site.

Finally, companies like Continuity Software provide real-time auditing of the validity of your DR Infrastructure including storage, databases, servers, and replication configurations. It can warn you of replication inconsistencies, mixed storage types or RAID levels, etc.

An out-of-date DR plan is like having no DR plan at all. Leveraging tools to make sure the right data is being replicated and leveraging systems that speed up the DR testing process are critical components in making sure your DR plan will actually work when you need it.

Join us for our upcoming Webcast on Improving IT Efficiency.

Track us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/storageswiss.

Subscribe to our RSS feed.

George Crump is founder of Storage Switzerland, an analyst firm focused on the virtualization and storage marketplaces. It provides strategic consulting and analysis to storage users, suppliers, and integrators. An industry veteran of more than 25 years, Crump has held engineering and sales positions at various IT industry manufacturers and integrators. Prior to Storage Switzerland, he was CTO at one of the nation's largest integrators.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Want Your Daughter to Succeed in Cyber? Call Her John
John De Santis, CEO, HyTrust,  5/16/2018
New Mexico Man Sentenced on DDoS, Gun Charges
Dark Reading Staff 5/18/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: This comment is waiting for review by our moderators.
Current Issue
Flash Poll
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
[Strategic Security Report] Navigating the Threat Intelligence Maze
Most enterprises are using threat intel services, but many are still figuring out how to use the data they're collecting. In this Dark Reading survey we give you a look at what they're doing today - and where they hope to go.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-11354
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the IEEE 1905.1a dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-ieee1905.c by making a certain correction to string handling.
CVE-2018-11355
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, the RTCP dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-rtcp.c by avoiding a buffer overflow for packet status chunks.
CVE-2018-11356
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the DNS dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-dns.c by avoiding a NULL pointer dereference for an empty name in an SRV record.
CVE-2018-11357
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the LTP dissector and other dissectors could consume excessive memory. This was addressed in epan/tvbuff.c by rejecting negative lengths.
CVE-2018-11358
PUBLISHED: 2018-05-22
In Wireshark 2.6.0, 2.4.0 to 2.4.6, and 2.2.0 to 2.2.14, the Q.931 dissector could crash. This was addressed in epan/dissectors/packet-q931.c by avoiding a use-after-free after a malformed packet prevented certain cleanup.