Many storage observers and some in the vendor community have suggested that continuous data protection (CDP) can replace existing backup regimes. This probably does more harm than good to the topic from a marketing standpoint. CDP is aimed at high value applications and should be treated as such.
CDP debates can rage about file versus block, true CDP versus near CDP, snapshots versus snapshots plus, in-band versus out-of-band, etc. But the most useful initiatives vendors can embark upon for CDP adoption are:
- Integrate CDP into existing backup regimes; and
- Integrate CDP with specific applications (application aware CDP).
Why doesn't CDP replace existing backup approaches? First, CDP is really a recovery mechanism that uses logs to roll forward and roll back points in time. But CDP is being targeted at big, important applications that need a proper backup where everything is consistent and is backed up 100%. Second, customers for these types of applications need to have a way to get a consistent point in time backup off the site (versus a remote backup of the log) and that is what a proper backup will accomplish.
Regarding application integration, there are many useful examples. Exchange customers would like elemental recovery by dialing back for a particular user. Oracle customers can benefit from the automated recovery of a critical database and SAP users would benefit from being able to recover across a set of servers and volumes that comprise an SAP system.
While much of this work is underway (e.g. Symantec integrates with its own backup facilities) lots more needs to be done.
Action Item: CDP vendors should focus more attention on integration with existing backup regimes and make CDP more application aware. This will add much more value to the customer base than less relevant technology debates that serve more marketing hype than business value realities.
Footnotes: