Editor's Note: Data Protection Server (DPS) has been renamed Data Protection Manager. This article has been updated to reflect that change.

According to Microsoft, 42 percent of attempted recoveries from tape backups in the past year have failed. In addition, Ben Matheson, group product manager for Microsoft Data Protection Manager, told me, "More than 50 percent of customers we've surveyed said their current backup solutions do not fill their needs." Such statistics, along with Gartner Group estimates that backup software represents a $2.5 billion market, indicate that vendors see opportunity for products in this area.

Microsoft has seized that opportunity by introducing Data Protection Manager, a new disk-based backup and recovery product. This addition to the Windows Server System family is currently in public beta and will be available for purchase in the second half of the year.

Whenever Microsoft enters a new market, the move is controversial, so I decided to survey our readers to see what you think about this move, whether you see value in such a product, and what questions you want to ask Microsoft about it.

What Is Data Protection Manager?
Even after reading the overview of Data Protection Manager on Microsoft's Web site, readers aren't certain about how this product relates to Windows Server 2003; as evidenced by questions such as, "It appears this feature will be a download for Windows Server 2003; or is this a new version of Windows?" I shared our survey results with Ben and asked him to discuss the relationship of Data Protection Manager to the OS. "Data Protection Manager is not a feature or function of Windows Server," he explained. It's a separately licensed and sold server application, like SQL Server and Exchange Server, that runs on top of Windows Server 2003."

How will the first version of Data Protection Manager fit into a backup and recovery infrastructure? Ben explained, "In version 1, Data Protection Manager addresses disk-based backup of file servers, the most commonly used workload."

The decision to start by supporting file servers seems reasonable in light of our survey results, which show that 41 percent of the 485 respondents use some form of disk-based backup, and 34 percent of those users are backing up file and print servers. The next most common workloads were database and email, each of which was cited by 29 percent of respondents who use disk-based backup.

Ben observed, "Your research shows that companies adopt disk-based backup to protect file servers most commonly. That's because file server backup is the biggest workload out there. It's also a workload that causes a lot of pain for customers, so we're focusing Data Protection Manager on that workload first. Our vision is that we'll protect all the Windows Server System workloads. Future versions will back up SQL and Exchange. Although Data Protection Manager will not support SQL Server backups right away, keep in mind that people often protect databases by doing a SQL dump. With that approach, you dump the contents of the database to a flat file, which you then back up. In this scenario, you can use Data Protection Manager to protect the SQL dumps."

How does disk-based backup fit into an overall backup solution? "We designed Data Protection Manager to be complementary with tape. Our feeling is that customers should adopt a disk-to-disk-to-tape scenario. The reason is simple: Ninety percent of recoveries happen within 30 days of when a file was deleted. So if customers keep 30 days' worth of snapshots on disk, Data Protection Manager will handle at least 90 percent of all recoveries they'll have to do. And they can recover from disk in minutes or seconds rather than in hours from tape. That's a tremendous cost savings. However, we still think tape is important for three reasons: First, you can keep tape around for long periods. Second, it's very easy to pick up tapes and move them off site. Finally, a variety of regulations and compliance issues require offsite tape protection and long-term retention."

A key feature of Data Protection Manager is that it lets end users recover files without IT intervention. Windows 2003's Volume Shadow Copy Service (VSS) API enables this user-level file recovery. As Ben explained, "Data Protection Manager provides protection from hardware failure, as well as end-user recoveries. With Shadow Copy for Shared Folders, all your snapshots are kept on the same physical server. If that server crashes, you lose all the original data as well as your shadow copies. Data Protection Manager is a separate hardware medium, a second tier of protection. So if your server fails, you can still recover from the Data Protection Manager server. That means an additional layer of protection, not only from end users accidentally deleting their files (or what we call "oops recovery"), but also from when the entire server goes down. The IT administrator can do recoveries from the entire server volume."

Our survey shows that few readers—little more than 10 percent—are using shadow copy functionality. Ben provided insight into this situation: "In the past, some third-party shadow copy products weren't designed to quiesce the application when they took a snapshot, which meant there was no guarantee you'd get a clean snapshot. With Volume Shadow Copy Service or Shadow Copy for Shared Folders, because of the VSS API, we guarantee a clean snapshot."

"Why Not? They Do Everything Else"
I was interested to find that the great majority of the survey respondents considered Microsoft's entry into this market to be positive. Thirty-nine percent said they would definitely evaluate Data Protection Manager, and 37 percent would probably evaluate it. Less than 21 percent were undecided, and only 3.3 percent of the respondents were prepared to say they wouldn't evaluate Data Protection Manager. Many people had comments such as, "Good. This will create competition and force traditional backup and storage vendors to develop new products." Several other remarks were along the lines of "A complete OS should offer a reliable backup and recovery application" or "As long as it's better than Ntbackup—great!" Of course, some people weren't so positive, commenting, "Not good. I'm not a fan of Microsoft trying to provide every solution a company needs. In this case, Microsoft appears to be competing with its own ISV partners" or "Leave it to other, better qualified vendors that regularly operate in this space."

Ben addressed the existence of other similar products, saying, "We hear from customers that the disk-based backup products in the market are too expensive and difficult to use. Proprietary disk-based backup appliances sell in the $50,000–$60,000 range for a 1TB hardware/software solution. By working with a broad ecosystem of partners and industry-standard hardware and software, Data Protection Manager can provide a very powerful but easy-to-use solution for a fraction of this cost." However, when I asked how much Data Protection Manager would cost, Ben responded, "At this time, it's a little bit early to talk about pricing, so we'll save that for a later date. Our goal is to be very price effective."

Questions for Microsoft
The questions that readers raised most frequently about Data Protection Manager concerned reliable recovery, ease of use and manageability, and support for heterogeneous environments. Ben noted, "Your feedback from customers called out the three main advantages and the business value we provide. First, we enable reliable recovery in minutes, not hours like tape takes today." For example, Ben explained, "because we use replication, Data Protection Manager looks like a giant file server. So if a file is a PowerPoint on your production server, it's saved as a PowerPoint on Data Protection Manager. That means your recovery is very fast because you're just copying a file format back to your source server." Ben identified two aspects to reliability: "One is reliability and fidelity of the recovery, which is our number one focus. Two is the reliability of the backup itself. It's not uncommon for customers to say they have 10, 15, or even 20 percent of their backup jobs fail daily. We address both aspects."

Ben went on, "The second advantage is continuous and efficient protection: Today customers generally back up file servers once per day, but with Data Protection Manager you can continuously back up your servers. Finally, we use industry-standard hardware and software to provide the most cost-effective solution."

Addressing reader questions about whether Data Protection Manager will back up heterogeneous environments, Ben said, "Right now we don't plan to support heterogeneous applications (e.g., non-Microsoft applications such as Oracle Database or IBM Lotus Notes) and operating systems, but we listen to feedback and might pursue that route. As for storage hardware, Data Protection Manager uses industry-standard components (any Intel server with storage on any Windows Server 2003 product). We also work with a variety of arrays and Storage Area Networks."

Too Early to Tell?
Probably because Data Protection Manager isn't yet widely deployed, it's hard to get concrete information that doesn't sound like marketing. However, after talking with Ben, I conclude that Microsoft seems to be focused on the features and functionality you want. We'll have to wait to see the product at work to judge whether that focus is on the mark.

I hope this column gives you enough insight to determine whether Data Protection Manager is a product you want to investigate further. Please let me know what you think. I've passed along several reader letters to Microsoft representatives and received indications that your feedback is making a difference in products. What topics would you like me to address next?

End of Article




You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.

Reader Comments

microsoft will make it happen

Anonymous User

Article Rating 5 out of 5

Looking forward to something like this - will make backups more efficient regardless of the manufacture or supplier of the technology. If another product can come to market with the some functionality for the same cost then so be it - in the meantime microsoft is hitting a much needed area and I welcome it.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 1 out of 5

Our experience is that 99% of recoveries from back-up tape are successful, and that includes ad-hoc user requests as well as an annual off-site disaster recovery exercise which requires that key systems - including Exchange Server - are on-line within 4 hours. If we want to describe ourselves as IT professionals then we need to demonstrate that the back-up/recovery mechanisms we use work. In the main they do, so either the 42% statistic is wrong or there are an awful lot of people out there who aren't really earning their salaries.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 1 out of 5

It's good to hear Microsoft responding to customer feedback. It sounds like the DPS product is, at least in part, based on that. I do disk-based backups in addition to my tape backups, so this sounds like an interesting product to me.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 4 out of 5

Following the great Microsoft traditions of the past, I will wait until Version 3

Anonymous User

Article Rating 3 out of 5

George Kroner, that American Wanker should just go back to America

Anonymous User

Article Rating 3 out of 5

SonaSafe does a phenominal job of protecting Microsoft Servers. Why wait?

Anonymous User

Article Rating 4 out of 5

Why should I pay for another product as well as learn yet another product when an existing backup product such as ARCserve will do the same job and more. Current backup products either have support for backing up to disk or will have it when DPS is released. Even with DPS, you will still need a tape backup solution. Also I agree with a previous email that the percentage of failure on restore seems way to high. And again agreeing with another email, based on MS's history, version 3.0 is when it will be solid and ready for use.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 4 out of 5

I wonder how data lifecycle management is handled? If I am backing up to a library of shared disk backup media and then to a library of shared tape media, the data is going to end up being referenced to multiple servers and the challenge will be how can I locate the data I need to recover from a backup that was taken from a server that it was never created on, i.e. how is the data referenced back to it’s original server from tape?

Surely this is a problem that will need to be addressed by the backup ISVs where the backup application knows exactly where the data is at any time, i.e. it is responsible for managing the data lifecycle and should know whether the data is on primary disk, backup disk or tape and will know exactly where the source and target are in order to effectively recover the data. Also it was not clear how data is recovered from the disk library (DPS) as you should not be expected to manage data recovery by simply using drag and drop, again this would need to be handeled by the backup appliaction which has the ability to log and monitor the entire process and provide appropriate levels of security access.

Another interesting observation is the suggestion that 42 percent of attempted recoveries from tape backups in the past year have failed. I would be curious to know what size and type of business participated in the survey and who are Microsoft trying to target with this product. Within an enterprise for example you are looking at success rates of around 99%.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 2 out of 5

I agree with the users that state a 42% failure rate for attempted recoveries is high. It's all well and good that a backup system is in place, but how often do these administrators ensure that they can recover the data that is being backed up? Your backups are useless if you can't recover from them. I am the backup administrator at my shop and I have a 98% success rate when it comes to restoring data, and that includes Exchange and SQL Server. I would be in big trouble if I had a 58% success rate when it came to recovery. ArcServe and tape works fine for me, although we will be going to LTO soon. I won't even consider the DPS product for my environment.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 3 out of 5

Will this work with Windows Storage Server such as in the case of a NAS deyployment. Or is this just for Windows Sever 2003.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 4 out of 5

Why not just use NSI Software's DoubleTake? It is already a proven software product that does disk based backups using delta replication.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 3 out of 5

Why not Use DoubleTake or other party solutions - did you NOT read the article or plan for DPS/DPM? The goal is to make it affordable or not expensive like those third party tools - I know MS product will eventually take those space away too from third party.

Anonymous User

Article Rating 5 out of 5

> Proprietary disk-based backup appliances sell in the $50,000–$60,000 range for a 1TB hardware/software solution

Though I agree they're not all simple to use, Mr. Matheson's price quite is way off. Check out this month's comparative on disk-based backup appliances. (http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Article/ArticleID/46613/46613.html) I found 3 solutions with 1TB usable storage at RAID 5 for under $8000 and a fourth for under $15,000 that had remote replication capabilities.

acarheden

Article Rating 4 out of 5

 
 

ADS BY GOOGLE