Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

News

9/17/2009
09:45 AM
George Crump
George Crump
Commentary
50%
50%

Backup Vs. Recovery

One thing suppliers and analysts are quick to point out is that when it comes to data protection it is not about how well you backup, it is about how well you recover. That sounds very catchy and for the most part is accurate. I believe however, that backup is an equally important part of the data protection puzzle. It is after all poor backup strategies that make recovery so hard and unpredictable.

One thing suppliers and analysts are quick to point out is that when it comes to data protection it is not about how well you backup, it is about how well you recover. That sounds very catchy and for the most part is accurate. I believe however, that backup is an equally important part of the data protection puzzle. It is after all poor backup strategies that make recovery so hard and unpredictable.First, you must have something to recover for the recovery effort to work. No data, no recovery. Second, you must have that data where you need it. If your primary site is down, and you need to start recovering at your DR site, this is the wrong time to find out that the data didn't make it there or that it takes your vaulting service three hours to deliver your data back to you. I hate to say it but this is where real world testing comes in. One strategy I have seen used to really test your DR plan is to have someone else execute it that is not on your team. For example, find a trusted storage VAR that knows your products but not your company, can they follow your plan, recover your data and get you up and running? Having someone outside the company execute your recovery plan may be reality if disaster really does strike.

An effective recovery effort involves knowing how your backup worked locally. Do you have backup reporting tools like those from Tek-Tools and APTARE that can give you an accurate, snapshot overview of the backup process? Again, knowing your backup also means knowing that you will probably have more than one data protection application. Having a single tool that can report across all your different data protection processes (snapshots, backup, replication) gives you this "forewarned is forearmed" knowledge.

Once you know the data is backed up locally you need to also know that the backup is available remotely or at the DR site. This requires knowing how you are going to get your data off-site. The replication capabilities of deduplication products like Data Domain, Exagrid and Nexsan may be more responsible for their success in the market place than the local on-premise storage capacity savings that they enable. As we detail in our article "Deduplication Means Affordable DR", the deduplication process is what enables entire backup jobs to be replicated across thin WAN connections to DR sites. For businesses that don't have a secondary site that is suitable to replicate to, we are seeing companies like Simply Continuous begin to offer to host the deduplication target. Leveraging a cloud based model to offer recovery as a service.

The investment in the data protection process is almost always focused on getting the backups done faster. Attention needs to turn to make sure they are also done reliably and that those backups are positioned at the right location for recovery at the right time. Spending time upfront and then testing the process is critical for DR success.

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
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Cloud Security Startup Lightspin Emerges From Stealth
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  11/24/2020
Look Beyond the 'Big 5' in Cyberattacks
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/25/2020
Why Vulnerable Code Is Shipped Knowingly
Chris Eng, Chief Research Officer, Veracode,  11/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win an Amazon Gift Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: We are really excited about our new two tone authentication system!
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-4126
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-01
HCL iNotes is susceptible to a sensitive cookie exposure vulnerability. This can allow an unauthenticated remote attacker to capture the cookie by intercepting its transmission within an http session. Fixes are available in HCL Domino and iNotes versions 10.0.1 FP6 and 11.0.1 FP2 and later.
CVE-2020-4129
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-01
HCL Domino is susceptible to a lockout policy bypass vulnerability in the LDAP service. An unauthenticated attacker could use this vulnerability to mount a brute force attack against the LDAP service. Fixes are available in HCL Domino versions 9.0.1 FP10 IF6, 10.0.1 FP6 and 11.0.1 FP1 and later.
CVE-2020-9115
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-01
ManageOne versions 6.5.1.1.B010, 6.5.1.1.B020, 6.5.1.1.B030, 6.5.1.1.B040, ,6.5.1.1.B050, 8.0.0 and 8.0.1 have a command injection vulnerability. An attacker with high privileges may exploit this vulnerability through some operations on the plug-in component. Due to insufficient input validation of ...
CVE-2020-9116
PUBLISHED: 2020-12-01
Huawei FusionCompute versions 6.5.1 and 8.0.0 have a command injection vulnerability. An authenticated, remote attacker can craft specific request to exploit this vulnerability. Due to insufficient verification, this could be exploited to cause the attackers to obtain higher privilege.
CVE-2020-14193
PUBLISHED: 2020-11-30
Affected versions of Automation for Jira - Server allowed remote attackers to read and render files as mustache templates in files inside the WEB-INF/classes & <jira-installation>/jira/bin directories via a template injection vulnerability in Jira smart values using mustache partials. The ...