*** begin quote ***
Live Webcast: Solving Increased Data Backup and Recovery
Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Time: 10 am Pacific Time / 1 pm Eastern Time
Presented by: Michael Krutikov, Sr. Product Marketing Manager
With ever–increasing amounts of data, whether driven by datacenter evolution or just plain growth, there is a definite need for better solutions in today’s enterprise data centers. So the big question is, how do you solve for the increased amount of data while obtaining operational efficiency that delivers success for IT and ROI for an organization?
*** end quote ***
Interesting concept focusing on the data in the datacenter.
But what good does it do to have your data if your recovered systems are a mess.
That is, for example, what about:
- The various job schedulers —autosys, job track, cron, tape management systems, job control language, job instructional language, batch, pseudo batch, etc. etc. — all have to be “resynchronized”.
- The various third parties that one receives and sends to. In a disaster, one assumes that life elsewhere went on. Perhaps, even complicated, by your own organization, using contingent methods to up date data that the recovering systems are unaware of.
- What about the “appliances” and “firewalls” — of various and sundry types — that keep state information in strange places.
In several previous employment “lives”, the solution was found in “Start of Day / End of Day” backups.
What this does is established known good points where the datacenter can restart from with the sure and certain knowledge that ALL business and technology data is good and consistent across the enterprise. If, and this is a big if, the applications and systems can speed the clock from “the recovery point” to the “interruption point”, then the Business and Technology people can pick up right where they left off. Every “Third Party Involved” interface needs to have a “reconciliation procedure” to align the recovered data with that held in the Third Parties systems.
It’s rare to see a recovery that can happen this way. (I’ve never seen it. Despite advocating for it with many different Clients and Employers.)
It’s as if they can’t imagine a disaster, and as such prefer to gamble: (1) that it will never happen; and (2) somehow someway they will muddle through. With that as their “strategy”, they do just enough to fool the auditors and their Leadership. Of course, it all comes tumbling down when “hard questions” are asked.
— 30 —