News
12/14/2010
11:30 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

What Disaster Are You Planning For?

When the subject of disaster recovery comes up many IT professionals' minds immediately flash to an epic event like a fire, hurricane, tornado or earthquake. While this is fine for a point of reference, what about planning for the more mundane disaster? These simple disasters can often cost you as much in revenue and brand reputation than their larger alternatives.

When the subject of disaster recovery comes up many IT professionals' minds immediately flash to an epic event like a fire, hurricane, tornado or earthquake. While this is fine for a point of reference, what about planning for the more mundane disaster? These simple disasters can often cost you as much in revenue and brand reputation than their larger alternatives.I have nothing against planning for a disaster that assumes the loss of the primary data center and moving operations to an alternate site. Clearly this is something you should plan for. The problem that I have seen is that when planning for these once in a lifetime disasters people often loose site of the risk involved in the once a month mini-disasters. Mini-disasters are situations that occur and impact a small section of your data center. It can be a double drive failure on a RAID array, application data getting corrupted or the server/virtual machine that the application runs on crashing for some reason.

As we will discuss in our upcoming webcast "What's Missing From Your DR Plan for 2011?" mini-disasters tend to get left out of most disaster plans and application rollout projects. Mini-disasters don't capture headlines, users have no idea in many cases why their application isn't available, they just start calling IT and asking when it will be fixed. Then they wait and there goes productivity. Lost user productivity can delay production which will impact revenue. The situation is worse when customers have no idea why they can no longer place an order or use a particular service. Customers don't wait for you to fix the problem, they just go somewhere else. These mini-disasters also send the IT staff into a wasteful fire-drill mode and put friction in the relationship between IT and the rest of the organization.

For these mini-disasters most IT pros count on the backup process to bring things back to life. Probably for many applications that is a fair expectation but even if all the back data is actually recoverable, there is a gap in how often that data has been protected and there is a time delay in how long it will take to restore that data back into place, especially if it needs to be copied across an Ethernet network. The net impact is that you should count on a minimum of four hours of downtime when recovering from a backup system. Server virtualization and virtualization specific backup applications can help, as can application availability applications. All of which we will cover in our upcoming entries.

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

Subscribe to our RSS feed.

George Crump is lead analyst of Storage Switzerland, an IT analyst firm focused on the storage and virtualization segments. Find Storage Switzerland's disclosure statement here.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
10 Recommendations for Outsourcing Security
Enterprises today have a wide range of third-party options to help improve their defenses, including MSSPs, auditing and penetration testing, and DDoS protection. But are there situations in which a service provider might actually increase risk?
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-4774
Published: 2015-05-25
Cross-site request forgery (CSRF) vulnerability in the login page in IBM License Metric Tool 9 before 9.1.0.2 and Endpoint Manager for Software Use Analysis 9 before 9.1.0.2 allows remote attackers to hijack the authentication of arbitrary users via vectors involving a FRAME element.

CVE-2014-4778
Published: 2015-05-25
IBM License Metric Tool 9 before 9.1.0.2 and Endpoint Manager for Software Use Analysis 9 before 9.1.0.2 do not send an X-Frame-Options HTTP header in response to requests for the login page, which allows remote attackers to conduct clickjacking attacks via vectors involving a FRAME element.

CVE-2014-6190
Published: 2015-05-25
The log viewer in IBM Workload Deployer 3.1 before 3.1.0.7 allows remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via a direct request for the URL of a log document.

CVE-2014-6192
Published: 2015-05-25
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in IBM Curam Social Program Management 6.0 SP2 before EP26, 6.0.4 before 6.0.4.5 iFix10, 6.0.5 before 6.0.5.6, and 6.0.5.5a before 6.0.5.8 allows remote authenticated users to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via a crafted URL.

CVE-2014-8926
Published: 2015-05-25
Common Inventory Technology (CIT) before 2.7.0.2050 in IBM License Metric Tool 7.2.2, 7.5, and 9; Endpoint Manger for Software Use Analysis 9; and Tivoli Asset Discovery for Distributed 7.2.2 and 7.5 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (CPU consumption or application crash) via a cr...

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Join security and risk expert John Pironti and Dark Reading Editor-in-Chief Tim Wilson for a live online discussion of the sea-changing shift in security strategy and the many ways it is affecting IT and business.