Upload
infosecuritybe
View
1.593
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Seminar by Brecht Arteel (pro-art) during Infosecurity.be 2011
Citation preview
Mainframe backup TODAY
A study for lowering backup costs in mainframe environments
(c) 2011 by Pro-Art bvba – Brecht Arteel – [email protected]
Introduction
� Is the Mainframe dead?
� Has it resurrected?� Has it resurrected?
� Applications migrations planned?
� Presentation based on a Pro-Art bvba study: an inquiry with companies within the Trends top-50 (Banking, Retailing, Manufacturing)
Mainframes anno 2005
� Most mainframe users predicted to use the mainframe just for a little longer
� Mainframe usage was still strategic for most users
� Mainframes still in use within major industry markets (banking, retail, manufacturing, ...)
� Planned application migrations towards Open Systems? Microsoft .Net? Java?
Mainframes anno 2011
� Importance of mainframe usage remains strategic
� Old customers orderred additional mainframes or � Old customers orderred additional mainframes or replaced the “old” ones (based on an inquiry in the top50 Belgian non-it companies)
� Application migrations failed or have proven to be not cost-efficient
� Most users confirm that their mainframe remains important and will stay for at least 3 more years.
Mainframe backups?
� Mainframe backups still happen rather traditionally
� Connectivity is not a problem (ESCON or FICON)� Connectivity is not a problem (ESCON or FICON)
� Performance is hardly an issue
� Capacity is almost never an issue (no rich content on mainframes)
� Is there an issue then?
Mainframe backup challenges
� Low volume but critical content, small tape cartridge capacity, many slots (SILO)
� Mainframe plays a vital role in batch � Mainframe plays a vital role in batch processing, reliability is key, a second copy of the backup can be important
� No global backup policy for mainframe and open systems
� Dedicated backup hardware for the mainframe only is not cost-efficient (OPEX and CAPEX level)
� Backup SILO robots like the StorageTekPowderhorn has a very large footprint in your datacenters
� Duplicating tapes consumes MIPS
Example
� Banking customer with an IBM Mainframe, around 1 TB backup data (all retention together)
� ESCON connected tape drives & robotics� ESCON connected tape drives & robotics
� Backup Infrastructure in use was out-dated
� Cost per TB of backup data was 1000% more expensive than
open system backup costs
� The actual costs where – compared with the costs of the
mainframe itself – small
� Tape handling for off-site backups was mandatory due to
the importance of the data – extra costs
� To them, no clear gain to make
2 Approaches possible
� Leave all like it is (no problems & cost is relate to the mainframe cost in total)
� Try to align open system backups & mainframe backups
� Backup tool can not be changed
� Non-intrusive is mandatory
� Cross-platform backup infrastructure (mainframe & OS)
� ESCON should be possible (FICON boards not common and
expensive)
� Robust & proven technology
How to start?
� Calculate costs of current hardware maintenance / year
� Estimate lifetime of the mainframe in place (how long will� Estimate lifetime of the mainframe in place (how long willthe MF still be used)
� Total cost = caculated cost x expected lifetime
� If total cost > 150k euro then GO
� DO NOT caculate using cost/TB, as mainframe backup is always much more expensive than Open Systems backup
Solutions - Luminex
� Luminex
� Channel Gateway
� Support for open systems� Support for open systems
� Uses existing disk storage as backup media (cost efficient)
� Emulates native MF tape drives such as 3480, 3490 or 3590 tape drives
Web: www.luminex.comlocally (close to Belgium) no real presence and knowledge
Solutions – Bus-Tech
� Bus-Tech (currently EMC)
� Mainframe Data Library (MDL)
� MDL-2000 and higher when in need of more than 1 ESCON need of more than 1 ESCON port
� Emulates tape drives known to the MF
� NFS towards external disk array (use existing storage!)
� Supported: IBM z/OS, MVS, VSE, VM, TPF and Unisys OS 2200
Web: www.bustech.comimplemented locally by Mainstorconcept who has in-house knowledge
Solutions - IBM
� IBM (using Diligent technology)
� IBM System Storage TS7680 ProtecTier Dedupe GWProtecTier Dedupe GW
� Deduplication on-board
� ESCON or FICON host connections
� In-line dedupe
� Clustering is possible
� Scales up to 1 PB
� Back-end storage is IBM only
� Not (yet) able to go direct totape
� Not (yet) able to replicatebetween systems
Solutions - Fujitsu
� Fujitsu
� Eternus CS High End C5 (fka CentricStor)
� Multi-platform solution� Multi-platform solution
� Using internal disk arrays
� Disks mainly used as “cache”, off-loaded to tape, independent of the backup solutions
� Fully redundancy, replication and clustering possible
� High end, High priced
What to choose?
� If only mainframe must be optimized then:
� No IBM Storage? Go for Luminex or BusTech
� IBM Storage? Stick with IBM� IBM Storage? Stick with IBM
� If Open Systems backups are also under stress
� Budget is tight: Luminex or BusTech
� Budget is not related to savings only: consider Fuijtsu
Example – what did they do?
� The banking customer as discussed earlier did:
� Calculation showed that ROI would be reached after 3 years, including HW purchase, 5 years of maintenance on the new solution (based on BusTech MDL – 2 units), usage of Tier1 storage including HW purchase, 5 years of maintenance on the new solution (based on BusTech MDL – 2 units), usage of Tier1 storage for keeping the backups and implementation costs
� Total implementation was less than 1 week
� RDP is possible in 15 minutes (involves only changing the NFS mount !!)
� Floor space gained over old tape infrastructure
� Off-site shipment of backups in-line with open system backups
� Global Conclusion: NO BRAINER
Questions?
� If you think you can gain from replacing your old large footprint MF backup hardware then do not hesitate toget in touch:get in touch:
� By email: [email protected]
� By phone: +32 476 32 85 11
� Other questions? Ask them after the presentation or drop us an email.