Track 1: Data Protection over Long-haul WANs

1
Track 1 Data Protection over Long-haul WANs

• Dragon Slayer Consulting
• Marc Staimer, President CDS
• marcstaimer_at_earthlink.net
• 26 April 2004

2
Agenda

• Why over long-haul
• Data Protection Apps
• Data Characteristics
• Trends
• TCP Characteristics

• Disconnect
• TCP Conclusion
• Solving TCP Performance Problems
• DP TCP Enhancers
• Conclusion Summary

3
Dragon Slayer Background

• 7 yrs sales
• 7 yrs sales mgt
• 10 yrs marketing bus dev
• Storage SANs
• 6 years consulting
• Launched or participated
• 20 products

• Paid Consulting
• gt 70 vendors
• Unpaid Consulting
• gt 200 end users
• Known Industry Expert
• Speak 5 events/yr
• Write 3 trade articles/yr

4
Why Data ProtectionOver Long-Haul WANs?

• Regulatory Compliance
• HIPAA, Sarbanes-Oxley, GLBA or the Patriot Act
• HIPAA fines 25k per violation
• Sarbanes-Oxley fines 1M or 10 yr prison term
• Protection against regional disasters
• Hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, floods,
  volcanoes
• Terrorist attacks

5
Data Protection Applications

• Volume Replication
• Snapshot
• Mirroring
• Backup
• Disk-2-Disk-2-Tape
• ILM

6
Volume Replication (a.k.a. cloning)

• Complete
• Incremental changes
• Large amounts of data

7
Snapshot

• Complete
• Incremental
• Directories
• Time based

8
Mirroring

• Synchronous
• Latency sensitive
• Distance limited 200KM
• Asynchronous
• Unlimited distance
• Typically time stamped

9
Traditional Backup

• Client-BU Server-Tape
• Server-BU Server-Tape
• Many-to-one

10
Disk-to-Disk-2-Tape

• Server-External Disk-Tape
• Server-Virtual Tape-Tape

11
ILM a.k.a. Information Lifecycle Management

• Policy or Wizard
• Migrates data to lower cost storage
• Based on policies, regulations, data value

12
Data Protection Long Haul Trends

• TCP/IP Networks
• Shared
• Perceived to be free
• SONET
• Dedicated
• High performance Low Overhead

13
Audience Response

• What WAN do you use for data protection
• TCP/IP
• SONET
• Both
• Neither

14
Market Trends

• In a poll of over 200 End users
• From SMB, SME, and Enterprise
• 56 DP over TCP WANs
• 3 DP over other ATM/SONET
• 29 No DP over WAN
• 12 Both TCP ATM/SONET

15
Why TCP/IP WANs are so Prevalent with Data
Protection

• Perception that they are free
• Or at least very inexpensive
• Piggyback on IP WAN networks
• Evenings and Weekends

16
Characteristics of Data Protection

• Big blocks of data
• Can overwhelm standard IP routers
• Not limited to nights weekends
• Time is very relevant
• Time windows are getting smaller

17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
Data Protection gt OpEx Line Items

• Personnel
• Bandwidth

20
Headaches with TCP/IP WANs Data Protection

• Designed for some packet loss
• Typical 1
• Packet loss retransmissions
• Packet loss caused by
• Congestion
• Bit Error Rates
• Jitter
• Latency
• Router buffer overruns

21
TCP 1985 Designed for LANs

• TCP Slow Start
• Packet rate doubled
• Per successful round trip
• Loss Events
• Sending rate cut 50 per
• TCP Congestion Control
• Sending rate increase by 1
• Per successful round trip

22
TCP 2004 LAN Protocol over the WAN

• Same internal logic
• Since 1985!
• Loss events on High BW
• Induce large packet losses
• High Latency
• Slower recovery
• During congestion control
• Infrequent feedback
• On changing route conditions
• Based on packet loss events

23
TCP Resource Contention on Shared LinksReduces
Data Protection throughput

• Sporadic packet loss.
• Short long distance sessions
• Contend for same resources
• Router queues change dynamically
• From traffic bursts.

3
24
TCP What really happens to long distance sessions

• Packet loss events
• Frequent for shared nets
• Loss events
• Router buffer overruns
• Affect other sessions
• Lots of lost packets
• LD sessions beat down
• By SD sessions
• Results
• Low throughput
• Random delays

25
(No Transcript)
26
The Data Protection TCP WAN Disconnect

• As distance gt, performance lt
• Worse with higher bandwidth

27
Data Protection Conclusion

• Perception reality do not match

28
Solving TCP Performance Issues While Maintaining
its Perceived Value

• TCP enhancers
• Proxies
• Compressors
• Caching/spoofing
• Accelerators

29
Different Clever Technologies

• TCP/IP Performance enhancing proxy
• Eliminates TCP packet loss latency issues
• Compression
• Increases payloads per packet
• Compression increases from 2X to 400X
• Caching (a.k.a. spoofing)
• Acknowledges packets locally
• Accelerators
• Resequencing, QoS, concatenation, duplication
  elimination
• Chatty protocol elimination

30
TCP/IP Network Shielding
Bit Error Rates

• Much gt BW utilization!
• Before compression
• Shields TCP/IP Network
• Bit Error Rates
• Congestion
• Jitter
• Latency
• Buffer Overflows

Network Jitter
TCP/IP Latency
Router buffer Overflows
Network Congestion
Data protection packets in a TCP/IP network
31
(No Transcript)
32
gt DS3 TCP/IP Performance Enhancements

• NetEx - HyperIP
• Orbital Data - IP Express

33
lt DS3 TCP/IP Performance Enhancements

• Expand - IP Accelerators
• 1800/4800/6800/9000 series
• Peribit
• SR20/50/55/80
• Net Celera
• T Series
• River Bed - Steel Head
• 500/1K/2K/3K/5K
• Orbital Data
• IP Express LC

34
Caching Appliances

• River Bed - Steel Head 500/1K/2K/3K/5K
• CIFS MAPI
• Tacit - Ishared Server
• CIFS NFS
• Kashya - KBX4000
• Includes volume replication, snapshot,
  mirroring
• File block replication

35
Data Protection Data Caveats

• Needs TCP enhancement
• Large amounts of data
• Data migration
• Volume replication
• Snapshots
• High IOPS
• Bulk data transfers
• Long distance
• Big bandwidth

• May not need it
• Incremental data
• Only changed data
• Short time for net new data
• Asynchronous mirroring
• Short distance
• Small bandwidth

36
Summary and Conclusions

• Data protection apps over TCP WANs
• Has significant throughput issues over distance
• There are solutions
• Different solutions work better for different
  apps
• Compression is only a partial solution
• Check your options
• Find the one that works best with YOUR
  applications

37
Questions