Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment


  1. 1. Report on UGA Campus Data Backup and Recovery Needs May 31, 2004 Committee Membership Chris Adcock, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (Chair) William Clayton, UGA Libraries Wayne Crotts, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences David Floyd, University Testing Services Michael Hill, Franklin College Eddie Hunter, EITS Stuart Ivy, College of Veterinary Medicine Martijn Middelplaats, University Health Services Barry Robinson, College of Education John Taylor, Terry College of Business Larry Tucker, Computer Operations EITS
  2. 2. Table of Contents Page Introduction 3 Committee Formation & Mission 4 Backup and Recovery Practices Survey Analysis 6 Technology Overview 11 Campus Infrastructure Overview 15 Summary 16 Recommendations 17 Appendix 18 2
  3. 3. Introduction At the core of our business model and education delivery processes is the collection, management, preservation, and redistribution of data in one form or another. Unlike twenty years ago all of our data is not cloistered in one physical location under the watchful oversight of a specialized team of systems analysts. Instead, a multitude of data centers have emerged within the confines of individual colleges, departments, and service units. The aggregate data storage capacity continues to expand in these diverse computing environments. There are at least 90 such entities on the Athens campus and each one must manage the storage and preservation of institutional data. Managing the storage and preservation of data is not always highly esteemed within the overall context of the various information analysis and delivery processes that comprise our research, education, and outreach business models. However, it is extremely important to the short term and long term continuance of these processes and the effectiveness of our organization. Data backup and recovery is a necessary yet costly and time consuming function. Challenges abound. Conservatively, data center managers estimate that the storage capacity growth rate is 18% annually. Increasingly stringent security measures and regulatory requirements are being imposed requiring greater compliance diligence and increased resources. Clientele expectation for uninterrupted access to information is on the rise. Budget cuts have limited the ability to properly staff data centers and provide adequate equipment and software tools to meet new access demands and regulatory mandates. The need for a better understanding of these issues and research into possible solutions and efficiencies stimulated the call for the formation of an exploratory subcommittee. 3
  4. 4. Committee Formation and Mission Formation The concept of forming a committee to explore campus wide backup and recovery practices was first discussed at the August 2003 meeting of the Information Technology Management Forum (ITMF). The spectrum of discussion regarding committee mission and scope ranged from a full exploration of business continuity and disaster recovery needs to elements of centralized backup and recovery economies of scale. It was determined that investigating current backup and recovery practices and possible economies of scale would be the logical first step. ITMF strongly advised that the committee be small in number and include a diverse membership representative of both small and large units across campus. It was recommended that members be included from Enterprise Information Technology Services (EITS) representing the functional groups of Security and Operations. In addition, a representative from the Libraries was recommended because of their recent experience in recovering from significant fire damage at their site. In September a call for membership was issued and the committee was formed under the name Centralized Backup and Recovery Exploratory Committee. Mission Statement To seek to understand and quantify existing backup and recovery models currently in practice on Athens Campus and to explore and recommend options for improving and enhancing existing procedures with the goal of improving business continuity and finding economies of scale. Goals • Develop a means of discovering existing backup / recovery practices, capacities, and costs • Analyze current industry standard practices and procedures for centralized backup and recovery • Research current industry standard technologies / infrastructure for supporting large scale backup and recovery • Document industry or institutional success stories / horror stories relevant to backup / recovery / recovery and business continuity • Document UGA campus communications infrastructure design and capacities • Explore the possibilities of both internal and external collaboration • Interview and analyze private offsite data management businesses • Identify individuals / organizations who can provide us with best practices for managing data security and privacy • Study certain EITS large scale IT rollout models and ‘Due Diligence’ procedures 4
  5. 5. Process Phase One: Survey creation Content review and revision by ITMF Content review and revision by self application Partner with Student Services for web delivery of survey Partner with Paul Keck and ITMF for distribution list Collection and analysis of survey responses Phase Two: Consultation with outside data management vendors Vendor: Data Survival International (DSI) Vendor: Dell/EMC Vendor: Network Appliance Phase Three: Consultation with internal resource personnel Paul Keck: UGA Campus Network Management Eddie Hunter: UGA Campus Data Communications Infrastructure Jerry Nesmith: Research Services Computing Center Phase Four: External site visit Medical University of South Carolina Data Center Phase Five: Compilation and presentation of findings and recommendations 5
  6. 6. Backup and Recovery Practices Survey Analysis The Campus Backup and Recovery Practices Survey was conducted on the Athens campus during the month of December, 2003. Invitation to participate was communicated via ITMF and Domain Network Liaison distribution lists. Ninety one respondents participated in this survey. The intent of the survey was to gather information on current data backup and recovery needs and practices. Individual responses were compiled into aggregate views with accompanying analysis as listed below. Individual department / unit results will not be published in order to maintain confidentiality. See appendix A for a listing of the actual survey questions. When considering the following information be aware that although 91 individuals responded to this survey not every respondent answered all of the questions. Centralized Backup and Recovery Services Interest The survey question asked, “If a non mandatory, secure, reliable, centralized backup and recovery service could be put in place what elements of the service would you find useful? Check all that apply.” Forty-six out of 91 respondents said they would be interested in a primary backup service. Sixty-six percent recognize the need for off-site storage. Thirty percent desire all three services. Only 16% replied that they had no interest in any of the listed services. Central Services Responses % 1. Off-Site Storage Facility 60 66% 2. Primary Backup Service 46 51% 3. Secondary Backup Services 57 63% Interest in 1,2,&3 27 30% Not Interested in Any Services 15 16% Total Respondents 91 Server Platform Breakdown From both a campus view and individual unit view, the survey data shows that our server platform environment is quite heterogeneous. Of the 90 respondents to this question 39% maintain Netware Servers, 57% maintain Microsoft Servers, 43% maintain UNIX / Linux servers and 17% Other platforms. Platform Netware Microsoft Unix Other Response Response Response Response % Quantities s % s % s % s 0 55 61% 39 43% 52 58% 75 83% 1 20 22% 15 17% 12 13% 11 12% 2 to 5 13 14% 28 31% 16 18% 3 3% 6 to 10 2 2% 6 7% 5 6% 0 0% 10 or more 0 0% 2 2% 5 6% 1 1% Total 90 90 90 90 6
  7. 7. Respondents Data Storage Capacities As shown in the chart below, respondents report available data storage capacity at 59.92 terabytes. Of this capacity 23.7 terabytes of data storage space was identified as being in- use. It appears that roughly 39% of all hard drive storage capacity is currently being used for active file storage needs. However, there is no guarantee that all of the additional capacity can be classified as available for expansion. In practice, additional hard drive capacity is used to facilitate systems maintenance, testing, and recovery needs. For example, unused capacity may routinely be used to provide temporary space for data manipulation, temporary buffer space for certain scheduled processes, hot backups of selected data sets, or test bed space. Data Windows Unix Novell Other Totals Storage (TB) (TB) (TB) (TB) (TB) Total Capacity 14.80 32.67 5.47 6.98 59.92 In –Use 4.78 12.74 2.05 3.33 23.70 In-Use Percentage 33% 38% 49% 48% 39% Overall, survey respondent’s project data storage needs to grow at an annual rate of 18%. Using the 2004 in-use data totals, 18% growth for 2005 would require a storage capacity of 27.97 terabytes; a growth of 4.27 terabytes. Full Backup Frequency The responses to this question coupled with the information gathered about data storage and capacities provide some insight into the expected bandwidth load that our data communications infrastructure would need to accommodate. The survey question asked, “Which option best describes how often you perform Full Backups?” The choices ranged from ‘daily’ to ‘never’. Respondents were asked to reply per platform supported. The data shows that there was no significant variation of full backup behavior based on platform type. The only notable exception was that of the UNIX platform responses which indicate a 2-5 time greater frequency for ‘monthly’ full backups than was reported for the other listed platforms. It was also notable, and somewhat surprising to discover that approximately 11% of the responses indicate that full backups ‘never’ occur. As shown in the table below, independent of platform, the most popular backup frequencies were daily (37%) and weekly (34%). Backup Frequency Responses % Daily 52 37% Weekly 47 34% Every Two Weeks 7 5% Monthly 9 6% Every Two Months 5 4% Every 6 Month 3 2% Yearly 1 .7% Never 15 11% Total Responses 139 7
  8. 8. Should a campus based centralized backup and recovery service be established one could speculate that between 37% and 100% of data center administrators could initiate full backups on a daily basis. Given the data in-use capacities listed in the previous section, approximately 24 terabytes of data could traverse the data communications infrastructure during the same time period. In practice this would probably not be the case as it is likely that a reliable backup and recovery model would be based on a routine of no less than a weekly full backup coupled with daily differential or incremental backups. In any case, should a centralized backup and recovery service be established there would inevitably be new bandwidth loads introduced to our data communications infrastructure. Retention of Backups It appears that the majority of responding units retain full backups between one week and six months. Only 14% retain full backups for 1 year or more and 9% are not retaining backup copies at all. Retention Responses % 1 week 26 19% 2 weeks 20 14% 1 month 23 17% 2 months 20 14% 6 months 16 12% 1 year 8 6% 1 year + 12 9% Never 13 9% Total Responses 138 Media Storage Location The respondents were able to select all that apply for the question of where backup tapes or other backup media is stored. Thirty one units responded that they are storing data off site external to the campus. Seventy percent of the respondents indicate that they do not store their backup media in a fireproof safe. The survey did not provide a sufficient mechanism for identifying the level of protection against unauthorized access to media stored at any location. Location Responses Percentage ONSITE 69 76% OFFSITE/ON Campus 18 20% OFFSITE/OFF Campus 31 34% Total Respondents 91 Occurrence of Full Recovery from Tape Survey data shows that approximately 52% of units have performed full recovery from backup media over a one year period of time. 8
  9. 9. Full Recovery Occurrence Responses Percentage Once Weekly 1 1% Once Monthly 1 1% Once 3-6 Months 7 8% Once Yearly 38 42% Never 44 48% Total Respondents 91 Tape Backup Equipment, Software, & Media Not all units use production grade tape backup and recovery equipment. For example, smaller shops may simply dump to CD, DVD, or an out of production PC or server hard drive. Totaling the reported campus wide unit costs for maintaining backup and recovery equipment, software, and media calculates to $347, 882. Forty units on campus report using Veritas Backup Exec as their backup and recovery utility. Should a reliable and secure central backup facility be established and maintained a standard media type and backup software could be selected. It is expected that bulk purchasing and site licensing savings could be significant. Top Four Equipment Brands Responses Percentage Dell Powervault 17 20% Seagate 5 6% Sun 5 6% Sony SCSI sequential 3 3% Total Respondents 87 Top Six Backup / Recovery Utilities Responses Percentage Veritas Backup Exec (all versions) 40 45% Tar 8 9% Retrospect 6 7% Tivoli 2 2% NT Backup 4 5% Tapeware by Yosemite 1 1% Total Respondents 88 Top Six Media Types Responses Percentage DLT 32 37% DDS 12 14% LTO 8 9% CD –R 5 6% LVD 3 3% DVD-R 1 1% Total Respondents 87 9
  10. 10. Data Types Respondents to this particular question were able to check all that apply. The results listed below indicate how wide spread the storage of personal information has become on University of Georgia servers. Forty-three percent of respondents indicated that one or all of the following data types are stored at their location: Social Security numbers, credit card information, and student records. Regulatory compliance information applicable to the storage and transport of personal, medical, and financial information was not collected. Stored Data Types Responses Percentage Social Sec. No. 34 37% HIPAA Data 3 3% Credit Card No. 7 8% FERPA Data 11 12% Student Records 29 32% Human / Animal Rsrch. 7 8% Total Respondents 91 Connectivity Status The majority of units responding to the survey indicate that they are connected to the high speed Venus data communications network. Respondent Venus Connectivity Status s Percentage Off Venus 13 14% On Venus 76 84% Venus no response 2 2% Time and Effort The survey indicates that there is a wide variety of backup and recovery models in practice on our campus. Equipment, software, data capacities, and operating procedures effect both the time required to perform full backups and the personnel time investment to administer the processes. Assuming that only 91 data centers existed on campus and that the reporting of time investment was accurate it can be estimated that the aggregate time dedicated to managing backup and recovery processes is 227.5 hour per week. Human Resource Element Hrs. Average hours to perform full backups 8.65 Average hours per week dedicated to managing 2.5 backup operations 10
  11. 11. Technology Overview Focus The challenges faced when considering a centralized backup solution include identifying a solution that is: • OS agnostic and preferably using open standard protocols. Departments/units on the UGA campus employ a variety of operating system/networks including Microsoft Windows, Novell, UNIX, Apple, etc and a number of vendors. The centralized backup solution would need to meet the backup needs of these departments/units regardless of OS and vendor used; • Deployed within the UGA campus network infrastructure. (See the Campus Infrastructure Overview section for more information); • Scalable. It is anticipated that a centralized backup solution may be implemented in phases or even as a collaborative effort between multiple colleges/units/departments. The solution would need to be designed for not only data expansion, but also allowance for additional parties to join at later dates; • Manageable. A monitoring/management system would need to be in place so that: o Successful backups of data can be verified by the college/unit/department; o Successful recovery of data can be initiated and verified by the college/unit/department; o Ability for the college/unit/department to initiate new backup plans and/or edit existing ones. • Secure. The backup solution would need to meet established security criteria for handling the transmission and archiving of the stored data. • Cost Effective: A centralized backup solution should offer identifiable cost benefits relative to current backup and recovery practices. Human resources, hardware, infrastructure and software costs must be part of the overall TCO calculation. The committee looked at the feasibility of current industry standard technologies for supporting large scale backup and recovery. These included: • SAN (Storage Area Network) Technology • NAS (Network Attached Storage) Technology • Vendor Proprietary Solutions (which may include a combination of the above technologies). SAN Technology Although individual implementations differ, the most common SAN deployments consist of storage cabinets with large numbers of disks, fiber-switches interconnecting these cabinets, and interface cards (host adapters) connecting servers to the fiber-switches. This hierarchical, scalable model makes SAN technology ideally suited for environments that are expected to grow substantially over time. Redundancy in the links between servers 11
  12. 12. and switches as well as between individual switches and their attached storage cabinets can provide extensive fault-tolerance, with split-second fail-over capability. Typically, disks will be used to create (RAID) arrays, which can then be configured into segments (aka Logical Unit Numbers) that are individually assigned/associated with a specific server system. Arrays (and thus, LUNs) can be expanded upon dynamically, so there is virtually no limit to how much storage space can be allocated for any attached system. Management software usually offers extensive capabilities to create Point-in-Time copies of LUNs, real-time mirroring (to in-SAN, local or off-site storage facility) and the ability to create off-line backups to tape or disk. Advantages of SAN Technology • Largely OS agnostic • Extremely scalable • Lower TCO than DAS (Direct Attached Storage) for large deployments • Centralized management • Can be used for primary or secondary (backup) storage needs Limitations of SAN Technology • High initial costs • Requires fiber for intra-campus or off-site connectivity (Fiber SAN Only) • Management (of LUNs etc) can be challenging iSCSI SAN Technology This emerging technology eliminates the requirement for fiber optic interconnectivity. The term iSCSI refers to a process in which traditional SCSI commands, which are not natively formatted in IP, are wrapped in IP packets and transported across Ethernet networks. Since it uses SCSI block-based architecture, it allows efficient use of the bandwidth of the Ethernet. This allows an IP-based data storage device to be accessed by servers across an existing Gigabit Ethernet network. While iSCSI technology has been around since before 2001, the Internet Engineering Task Force only recently approved the iSCSI standard in 2003. In the last few months, iSCSI solutions have begun to emerge from several storage vendors. Additionally, Microsoft, Novell, IBM, and others have launched initiatives toward providing iSCSI drivers and support options to customers. Advantages of iSCSI Technology • Can be used over existing UGA Gigabit network • Ease of integration in the open standards environment Limitations of iSCSI Technology 12
  13. 13. • Bandwidth concerns. While efficient, the data is transmitted over the gigabit Ethernet backbone. Bandwidth use as well as quality of service monitoring and packet shaping may need to be in place to accommodate iSCSI traffic across the present UGA network infrastructure. Also, currently iSCSI is limited to 1 gigabit Ethernet capacity, though most experts believe this will increase to 10 gigabit capacity once 10 gigabit networks reach a more mature state in the next five years. • Processing overhead. The CPU will have to process the TCP/IP packet header in addition to the block data. The solution is a TCP Off-load Engine (TOE) or an iSCSI Host Bus Adapter (HBA). These specialized cards perform all the TCP/IP overhead processing with on-board processors instead of passing it to the CPU the way standard NIC cards do. TOE cards and iSCSI HBAs each have advantages and drawbacks. Whereas iSCSI HBAs deal only with iSCSI traffic, TOE cards can handle all standard Ethernet traffic. However, iSCSI HBAs use fewer main CPUs than do TOE cards for iSCSI operations, and they generally cost a few hundred dollars less than TOEs. • Proprietary Management System: While iSCSI itself is an open standard, there are concerns by industry experts that effective management systems may not be. • Security: iSCSI was not designed to be a secured data transmission protocol. IP- SEC/SSL or some other method of encryption will need to be deployed for iSCSI traffic thereby further increasing the processing overhead. • Software/license/hardware costs: In iSCSI methods reviewed, the cost for backup software licensing was significant as licensing cost is based ‘per CPU’ of the server. Also, hardware costs should be considered as TOE or HBA network cards are more costly than general 100/1000 gigabit network cards. Most experts feel iSCSI solutions will still be considerably less than fibre-optic solutions, but total cost of ownership should be looked at very closely with any specific iSCSI solution. Network Attached Storage: NAS (Network Attached Storage) is defined simply as shared storage that is attached to a LAN. Since it uses a familiar technology NFS (Network File System) and CIFS (Common Internet File System), to transmit data, NAS resources can be managed by existing IT staff with minimal training in storage management which may reduce IT costs. Another benefit of NAS is flexibility -- since the storage unit can easily be attached to the network and can support file services of different OS’s and networks. The weaknesses of the NAS solution include not being a highly scalable solution and requiring high bandwidth use thereby negatively affecting LAN performance. Due to these weakness, it could be a very limited method to use in a centralized backup initiative. However, vendor proprietary products offer NAS solutions which allow ‘block to block’ data transfer as well as ‘snapshot’ technology. After a full backup of a system has been completed, a number of subsequent full backups can be completed where only ‘disk blocks’ that have changed are transmitted over the wire. This radically improves backup and recovery performance. Often these vendor products are available for fiber and iSCSI SAN as well. Pro’s/Advantages of NAS Technology • Largely OS Agnostic. The storage unit can accommodate any system that uses NFS or CIFS. 13
  14. 14. • A NAS device is relatively easy to manage. Setup and implementation of a NAS device is typically very easy. • Secured. Traffic to and from a NAS device can be encrypted using SSL or IPSEC technology. • Cost Efficient: NAS devices are relatively inexpensive. Cons/Limitations of NAS • Cannot be practically implemented across the existing UGA Network infrastructure as a centralized backup solution due to its high bandwidth consumption. • NAS solutions that are utilizing ‘file to file’ data transfer formats (and not ‘block to block”) are not very scalable. As a means to archive and be able to quickly recover significant amounts of data, data transfer is significantly slower than the other solutions considered. Vendor Proprietary Solutions A number of vendors exist that provide proprietary data backup and recovery solutions. Typically, this involves installing the vendor’s software client on the server/workstation that requires data backup. The backup occurs over the existing Ethernet network to the vendor’s storage site. Some vendors offer bandwidth friendly solutions as well as encrypted means for transmitting data to the vendor’s storage facility. Pros/Advantages of Vendor Proprietary Solutions • Typically OS agnostic • Typically can operate across existing network topologies including UGA campus network infrastructure. (See the UGA campus network section for more information); • Solutions exist that are scalable allowing both for future growth of existing users and the provisioning for additional ones. • Solutions exist that incorporate good management protocols and capabilities for both building backup and recovery plans. • Typically solutions include encryption methods for securely transporting data to and from the archival site as well as physical site security protection measures. Limitations/Challenges of Vendor Proprietary Solutions • May have a higher cost of ownership • May reduce interoperability with other technologies Current Developments In addition, the committee met with Jerry Nesmith, Director of Research Services, who is coordinating the Research Computing Center project. This center, when online, will provide IT consulting and resource services to the research community at UGA, including housing a multi Terabyte data facility. Many of the network infrastructure and storage challenges that RCC will need to address are identical to those of a centralized backup and recovery solution. 14
  15. 15. Campus Infrastructure Overview The University of Georgia network consists of three major components – core, distribution and access layers. UGA’s core layer consists of 16 locations containing Foundry routers interconnected via partially meshed fiber links. The distribution layer is composed of a router or layer-two Ethernet switch location in the main wiring closet (called the main distribution frame or MDF) in a building that connects to the core via fiber and to building networks via fiber or Cat 5E twisted-pair copper cabling. Networked devices in buildings typically connect to layer-two Ethernet switches in intermediate wiring closets (called intermediate distribution frames or IDFs) via copper cabling, and the switches connect back to the MDF via fiber or copper. This collection of switches and cabling constitute the access layer. The core and distribution layers have a fixed amount of bandwidth capacity, and the access layer has varying capacity depending on the cabling that is used and more importantly what network switches are used in IDFs. At the present time the theoretical bandwidth capacity between core locations is two Gigabits per second (Gbps). However, with network overhead, a conservative estimate of the actual network capacity is 80% of the theoretical amount. This means that the inter-core capacity is approximately 1.6 Gbps. For most buildings on campus, the theoretical bandwidth capacity at the distribution layer is 1.0 Gbps with an actual capacity of 0.8 Gbps (or 800 Megabits per second [Mbps]). Networked devices in buildings typically connect at 10 or 100 Mbps (8 or 80 Mbps actual bandwidth), and switches in IDFs connect to the main building wiring closet at 1.0 Gbps via fiber or 100 Mbps via fiber or copper (800 Mbps or 80 Mbps of actual bandwidth, respectively). It is important to realize that networked devices share the bandwidth capacity from their IDF to the building MDF. All of the IDFs in a building share the capacity of the distribution layer connection. Multiple distribution layer connections in turn share the bandwidth capacity of the core layer network. Utilization data for inter-core and building distribution connections indicate that the average amount of bandwidth on the most active links is 18 Mbps and 13 Mbps, respectively (with peaks of approximately 30 Mbps). EITS does not collect utilization data from access layer switches, so no data is available for that layer. Although the current core and distribution bandwidth utilization is not near its capacity, future application needs such as research computing and centralized backup services could potentially exhaust that capacity. EITS is in the process of planning UGA’s next- generation core network which may consist of a fully-meshed 10 Gbps, four-core network with redundant Gigabit links from buildings. Because of anticipated bandwidth requirements for research computing, EITS, in a partnership with the Office of the Vice President for Research, is contemplating the development of a separate physical network to serve the needs of researchers. 15
  16. 16. Summary Survey findings make it clear that there is a high level of interest in enhancing and expanding backup and recovery capabilities on our campus. Eighty-four percent of the respondents indicated that they would utilize elements of a centralized backup service. Various levels of backup and recovery services are being performed at scores of locations throughout the Athens Campus. Equipment, software, media, local infrastructure, and personnel must be in place to perform this necessary function. Thus, ongoing backup and recovery costs are a significant portion of IT expenditures. Survey respondents reported that they cumulatively spend approximately $348,000 annually on equipment, software, and media. This does not include human resource costs. Total annual expense for the campus may be considerably higher. There are no official UGA institutional standards for administration of backup and recovery services. Data security practices, data management methodologies, retention and recovery practices vary from unit to unit. Forty-six percent of our respondents do not include off-site data storage as part of their data backup management practice. If no other means of data redundancy exist then these sites would stand a much higher probability of complete data loss should a localized catastrophic event occur. To mitigate this risk there is unquestionably a need to provide institutional off site storage. Technology is available to address the need of centralized backup and recovery services, (See Technology Overview). A combination of NAS, iSCSI and Fiber SAN technologies can be put in place to meet UGA centralized backup needs. At present Fibre Channel 1- Gbps and 2-Gpbs provide a more robust technology but require a fiber optic network infrastructure. iSCSI SAN technology has 1-Gbps limits, however its ability to use IP over a standard Gigabit Ethernet network infrastructure makes it a very attractive emerging technology because it eliminates the need for a separate fiber network. Likewise, NAS devices that offer ‘block to block’ and ‘snapshot’ features could offer definite advantages within the overall centralized backup and recovery model. There are advantages to establishing a centralized backup and recovery service. These include the opportunity for: overall reduction in operating costs; better positioning to meet regulatory compliance; improved service levels; improved and more consistent performance; standardization; enhanced monitoring and analysis; greater security control; and positioning to link to true offsite facilities. Should a centralized solution be implemented, startup and maintenance costs will vary based upon expectation levels, end point technology selection and transport technology selection. These decisions will be based on business need requirements and influenced by several factors such as institutional security and retention standards, clientele demand, and budget considerations. 16
  17. 17. Recommendations As part of an overall institutional business continuity-disaster recovery plan, we recommend that the University initiate a full cost benefit analysis of a centrally managed backup and recovery implementation. The study should include: the development of institutional guidelines and acceptable practices, the impact of consolidating existing parallel backup and recovery processes, human resource investment / reallocation, training, and risk mitigation. Investigation should be made into whether using the existing Athens campus network infrastructure for a centralized backup and recovery medium is feasible and scalable. Should it be necessary to enhance the existing infrastructure the following options could be investigated:  Dense Wave Division Multiplexing. DWDM would allow 8 times the current bandwidth over the existing network fiber. This additional network throughput could eliminate the need for additional fiber cabling to handle a central backup solution.  Incorporation of unused ‘dark’ fiber cable. There is unused (dark) fiber already in place on the Athens campus. However, it is unclear how much is available and its criteria for use. The committee is aware that the Terry College of Business (TCB) has entered into an agreement with the Research Computing Center (RCC) to use a portion of the data storage capacity of the research facility. RCC is purchasing 10 TB of high performance RAID-DP protected storage from Network Appliance as well as 16TB of lower performance serial ATA, RAID-DP storage. The latter will primarily be used for backup capacity. TCB is purchasing an additional 8TB of lower performance media to add on to the RCC configuration. Testing will be performed by Terry College of Business to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of using a centralized backup model for a portion of their operations. It is recommended that these findings be reported to the ITMF committee when appropriate. According to the survey 45 percent of respondents use Veritas backup software to help manage data backup and recovery. Licensing agreements are negotiated and purchased on a unit by unit basis. A centralized approach to Veritas licensing should yield an overall savings as compared to our existing autonomous practice. It is recommended that MSD explore campus site licensing options for backup software. Independent of a centralized backup solution a campus wide licensing agreement with Veritas could reduce overall costs and offer greater flexibility previously unaffordable at the unit level. Based on the range of backup practices, sensitive data categories, and equipment identified by the survey, we recommend that the ITMF explore with University Training and Development and EITS the development of a workshop or training class to promote recommended backup and retention standards for the campus. 17
  18. 18. Appendix A Campus Backup and Recovery Practices Survey 1. Please provide use with your contact information. 2. Is your site connected via UGA campus’ VENUS network? 3a. How many Novel Netware based servers do you maintain at your site? 3b. How many Microsoft based servers do you maintain at your site? 3c. How many Linux / UNIX based servers do you maintain at your site? 3d. How many ‘other platforms’ based servers do you maintain at your site? 4. What is the total hard drive storage capacity, measured in Gigabytes? 5. How many Gigabytes of storage are required to perform a full backup of all data? 6. Which option best describes how often you perform full backups? 7. Which option best describes how long you retain your full backups? 8. On average, how often does a situation occur that requires a full recovery of any system you maintain? 9. Describe your backup equipment. Please include functional description, make, model, media type, interface, throughput (in GB/min), and total raw capacity. 10. How much time in hours, is required to perform a full backup of all data at your site? 11. What day of the week and time of day do you normally initiate full backups? 12. Are there certain times of the day when data must be captured? Why and what times? 13. Do any of your backups include the following information types? Check all that apply. 14. Where do you store your tapes/media? 15. How much time per week, in hours, does staff at your site spend managing backup processes and media management? 16. What backup software do you use at your site and how much does it cost annually? 17. Over a three year period of time estimate that annual cost of 1) equipment, and 2) media, (but exclude backup software) associated with providing local backup and recovery services at your site. Please itemize these if possible. 18. Does your site store backup tapes in a fire proof safe? 19. Give your best estimate of how much additional storage capacity will be required for next fiscal year. 20. Do you have any special backup and recovery needs beyond what has already been described above? If so please identify those needs in the space below. 21. If a non mandatory, secure, reliable, centralized backup and recovery service could be put in place what elements of the service would you find useful? Check all that apply. 18
  19. 19. Appendix B References / Contributors The committee wishes to express our great appreciation to all those who invested their time, ideas, and effort into this project. Their participation has contributed to a better understanding of existing campus backup and recovery operations, needs, and potential solutions. Bobby Lathrop, Ph. D. Director Student Life Studies, University of Georgia Campus Resource: Provided consultation and hosting services for campus wide survey Mike Campbell Information Analyst II Student Life Studies, University of Georgia Campus Resource: Provided survey hosting support Paul Keck Network Engineer EITS, University of Georgia Campus Resource: Provided overview of campus networking and futures Aided with committee communications Jerry NeSmith Director Office of Research Services, University of Georgia Campus Resource: Provided knowledge transfer regarding grid computing /data center project Greg Ashley Executive Director – Admin EITS, University of Georgia Campus Resource: Provided consultation and EITS resources Laurie Tollison Major Accounts Manager Dell External Resource: Arranged site visit to the Medical University of South Carolina Provided knowledge transfer regarding Dells data center direction Buck Marchant Enterprise Systems Consultant Dell External Resource: Provided knowledge transfer regarding Dell / EMC Storage Area Network technology 19
  20. 20. David L. Mills VP and Director of IT Data Survival, Inc. External Resource: Provided knowledge transfer on offsite data management provision Adam Hofeler Account Executive, (GA & TN) Network Appliance, Inc. External Resource: Provided knowledge transfer regarding Net. Apps. data center direction Mark Kramer Architectural Specialist, Consulting Systems Engineer Network Appliance, Inc. External Resource: Provided knowledge transfer regarding data storage technology solutions Fred Nash Data Storage Manager MUSC External Resource: Hosted sub-committee visit to explore the Medical University of South Carolina’s data management model 20