NetWorker and replica management (RecoverPoint)

Hi Mark,

As you've identified, what your describing sounds a lot like what the NetWorker PowerSnap solution does (as well as the VSS-based Module for Microsoft).  Were you aware that there is a NetWorker PowerSnap module for EMC RecoverPoint?  This lets NetWorker insert bookmarks into RecoverPoint. The solution was designed to primarily do this in conjunction with an application module to queisce the application first (deal w/ logs, etc.), then tell RecoverPoint to insert the bookmark. NetWorker indexes the replica/bookmark as a backup and can use it for recovery, use it for a backup to tape (or other media such as disk/VTL, dedupe disk a la Data Domain, etc.).  Pretty much in line with what you've outlined, RecoverPoint can be the main protection mechanism with a copy to tape being done to meet corporate requirements if needed.

How it shows up in NetWorker and the policy screen that governs this looks like this (click images to expand):

So you're definitely on to something here and it is an idea we think is good as well.  But... It hasn't gained wide market adoption yet.

My opinion has been that depending on the organization, the group in the company are purchasing a RecoverPoint solution may not be the "backup team" and so, while they could very much benefit each other, the two don't always come together.

Looks like you're an EMC partner - for a bit more info - go look at these things on Powerlink?  A presentation is at this link and maybe check out the guide for this here.

Are you working a lot with RecoverPoint?  Do you know the guys on that product team?  They have tried over the last couple of years to evangelize the solution.

We'd love to see more come of it - maybe this is the start. 

-Eric

Hi Eric,

Thanks for the feedback.

I was aware of PowerSnap, but as far as I could see it was an underdeveloped product (i.e. limited application support - no Exchange I believe and no VMware support). Also like all the other options (NetWorker Microsoft Application Module and Replication Manager) it does not catalog/index the files and allow the administrator to browse the catalog for easy point and click restore.

I believe that replica management (i.e. RecoverPont, CLARiiON SnapView and Celerra SnapSure) is a function of a backup product (i.e. NetWorker) and it should not require an additional product (i.e. Replication Manager).

For customers who have a non-EMC backup product then it should be possible to obtain a copy of NetWorker that provides similar functionality to what Replication Manager provides today. I would also think that it would make a lot of sense for this software to be included with the array/replication technology or at least licensed per array rather than per host (I believe NetApp works this way).

The problem for me as a partner and therefore even more so for a customer is that there are too many technolgies doing more or less the same thing:

Replication

MirrorView

Celerra Replicator

RecoverPoint

SnapView

SnapSure

Replica Management

Replication Manager

NetWorker PowerSnap module

NetWorker Microsoft Application Module

Clearly it would be much easier for both EMC and the customer if we had:

Replication - RecoverPoint (I know it it moving this way)

Replica Management with integrated backup - NetWorker with replicas treated like a normal backup (i.e. application aware, indexed, point and click restore, log truncation, tape-out, ...)

Replica Management without integrated backup (i.e. RM today) - NetWorker without all the backup goodies that would be used with a 3rd party backup solution

From a programming point of view I would have thought that this was not a big jump from where the technology is today.

This is just my opinion, that I have been trying to push to the RecoverPoint and NetWorker guys within EMC for the last year or more, but I hope it helps.

Many thanks

Mark

Good observations and recommendations.  One thing we've been looking at is to make snapshot management a core NetWorker feature - not one that is maintained as a separate option.  Doing so would likely help adoption (its there to use as opposed to having to justify as as additional cost with additional overhead).  Moving it more mainstream, we would clearly look to simplify setup, recovery, expand scope etc.  I'll pass on a link to this discussion to the product manager for these solutions.  He'll be happy to get the feedback.

Regards,

Eric