Is in-house data replication a good alternative to tape?
For years, enterprises have replicated their data to disk at offsite locations for the rapid recovery of operations in the event of a disaster. Yet, merely retaining a single active mirror of a data set leaves much to be desired when it comes to meeting backup and compliance demands. Long-term retention requires multiple point-in-time copies, permitting a rollback of data to a previous state. Additionally, compliance archives must be immutable if they are to show the state of a system at a certain point in the past. Therefore, while replication and mirroring are excellent choices for disaster recovery, they do not meet all today’s data protection needs. Moreover, in-house replication is expensive and complex. It requires building, staffing, configuring, and operating a remote data center, which is very costly. It also entails installing over-provisioned hardware to ensure future capacity, driving up capital outlays still further. The fact is the costs and complexity of maintaining long
