Exa backup playbook

<Insert Picture Here>
Oracle Confidential: Internal and Partners ONLY
Exa-Backup
Download this slide
http://ouo.io/ZHR9Z3

Agenda
• Solution Overview: Exa-Backup
• Business Drivers, Target Markets and Customers
• Value Proposition / Key Messages
• Spotting, Qualifying and Sizing Opportunities
• Competition
• Architectural Considerations
• Customer Win Examples
• Resources

BU&R Exadata
RMAN backups
Exadata
Database
Machine Exadata
Expansion
Tape
Library
ZFS
Storage
Appliance

Agenda
• Business Drivers, Target Markets and
Customers
• Value Proposition
• Competition
• Resources

Exa-Backup
Business Drivers
Data protection concerns that keep customers awake at night
• Data loss exposure
- ESG 2008 estimates that 1 in7 (14%) backups and 1 in 6 (17%) restores fail.
• Meeting SLA's: shrinking backup windows; slow recovery processes
• Reducing costs (CAPEX, OPEX) and improving staff efficiency
• Complexity of BU&R process and the storage environment
• Data growth that is compounding year over year

• Account Control / Trusted Advisor
- Competition from vendors such as EMC/Data Domain, and
NetApp is very real and competes against both Oracle HW and
SW offerings.
- Competitors must sell data services to add value to their
hardware: replication, compression, dedupe, encryption, etc.
- These data services compete directly with GoldenGate,
Advanced Data Guard, Advanced Compression, SecureFiles,
and Advanced Security
Opportunity for Oracle
Benefits to the Oracle Team
+ = More Comp for Everyone!

Agenda
• Competition
• Resources

Exa-Backup
Value Prop
Savings
• Leverage included toolset for capacity reduction
• Reduce/eliminate media manager licensing costs
connecting directly
Simplicity •Native InfiniBand simplifies implementation
•Stay with current BU&R best practices – don’t change
Speed Backup and recovery throughputs up to 3x that of the
competition help to reduce risk

9
Exa-Backup Value Prop
Simplicity
• Implementation
– Already tested, validated, and supported together
– Integrated InfiniBand simplifies implementation
• Consistent with data center policy/best practices
– DD needs full BU’s to reach 6.3:1 dedupe ratio
• Effectively an “incrementals forever” strategy
• Full BU’s unnecessarily burden the network
• RMAN incremental only backs up changed blocks

10
ZFS STORAGE APPLIANCE
Sun ZFS Storage Appliances
Independent Study Confirms Simplified Management
Source: Edison Group Comparative Management Costs Study, 2010.
Faster to
provision
new storage
Faster in
administrative
tasks
Faster to
monitor and
troubleshoot
issues
36%36% 31%

Speed & Reduced Risk
Data Protection is all about reducing risk
• According to ESG 2008, 1 in 6 (17%) of restores fail. This can be
attributed, in large part, to lengthy recoveries requiring several “shifts”
to complete.
• ZFS 7420C has recovery throughput to effectively accommodate
recoveries in as little as 5 hours for DB’s up to 35TB
• Optimize system availability with predictive self-healing features
and a Fault Management Architecture that automatically detects
and diagnoses underlying problems
• Achieve greater data protection with integrated fault management,
and end-to-end data checksumming that automatically checks and
repairs corrupted data down to the bit level
DRAFT – Oracle Confidential – Internal ONLY

12
Speed
• Exadata for the most demanding RPO/RTO
– Backup up to 18TB/hr (full rack), 20-50TB/hr for incrementals
– Restore 18-24 TB/hr (full rack)
• ZFS Storage Appliance Beats NetApp and EMC Data
Domain!
– Over 3x the backup throughput of NetApp FAS3170C
– Up to 2x the restore throughput of NetApp
– Over 3x the backup throughput of Data Domain 880
– Over 4x the restore throughput of DD
• T10000C Beats IBM!
– 25% greater capacity, 33% lower TCO, and 50% less floor
space than IBM TS1140

13
Savings
• ZFS Storage Appliance provides the only direct connect
IB connection to Exadata!
– Save up to $300k in disk-based license/support
– Leverages Exadata's internally managed InfiniBand network
• No network upgrade required
• More cost effective than 10GbE
• Space
– EHCC (10-15x)
– Advanced Compression (2-4x)
– ZFS compression (2-10x)
– Any of the above provide more space savings than dedupe as
included tools of either Exadata or ZFSSA.

14
Savings: Cash Flows And Metrics
NetApp 3270C and ZFS 7420C
•Save nearly $250,000 in 3 years over implementing a NetApp 3270C
BU&R offering – need 2 to match restore throughput of ZFSSA
•Discounting
- NetApp: HW: 50%, Service: 20% (no software)
- ZFSSA: HW: 30%, Service: 0%
•NetApp TCO is over 200% that of ZFSSA 7420C
Oracle Confidential – Internal and Partners ONLY
Solution Cost Summary Investment Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
Total FAS3270 Cash Flow 342,840 43,078 45,658 47,471 479,047
Total ZFS7420C Cash Flow 148,292 27,413 28,259 28,373 232,337
Net Savings 194,548 15,665 17,399 19,098 246,710
Cumulative Net Savings 194,548 210,213 227,612 246,710

15
DD890 and ZFS 7420C
•Need 4 DD890’s to match recovery throughput of 7420C
•Save over $2,000,000 in 3 years over implementing a Data Domain
BU&R offering (4 DD890’s)
•Discounting
- Data Domain: HW: 50%, SW: 50%, Service: 0%
- ZFSSA: HW: 30%, Service: 0%
•DD890 offering TCO is over 10X that of ZFSSA 7420C
Solution Cost Summary Investment Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total
Total Data Domain Cash Flow 1,699,788 153,662 215,581 224,099 2,293,130
Total ZFS7420C Cash Flow 148,292 27,413 28,259 28,373 232,337
Net Savings 1,551,496 126,249 187,322 195,726 2,060,793
Cumulative Net Savings 1,551,496 1,677,745 1,865,067 2,060,793

ExaBackup
Competing Against EMC Data Domain and NetApp
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$/TB/hr
Based on TCO over 3 years and recovery throughput

TS3500 vs. SL3000 1PB
•SL3000 (1 T10000C), TS3500 (2 LTO5), 1:1 compression
•Discounting
- IBM: HW: 55%, SW: 55%, Service: 55%
- Oracle: HW: 55%, Service: 0%
•TS3500 offering TCO is nearly 85% more that of SL3000
Solution Cost Summary Investment Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Total IBM TS3500 Cash
Flow
150,533 25,980 88,898 108,519 169,924 209,950 753,804
Total Oracle SL3000 Cash
Flow
100,933 12,072 54,109 50,762 84,846 106,559 409,281
Net Savings 49,600 13,908 34,789 57,757 85,078 103,391 344,523
Cumulative Net Savings 49,600 63,508 98,297 156,054 241,132 344,523

TS3500 vs. SL8500 10PB
•SL8500 (10 T10000C), TS3500 (17 LTO5), 1:1 compression
•Discounting
- IBM: HW: 60%, SW: 60%, Service: 60%
- ZFSSA: HW: 60%, Software: 60% Service: 0%
•TS3500 offering TCO is over $2M more than SL8500
Solution Cost Summary Investment Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Total IBM TS3500 Cash
Flow
947,477 120,552 601,353 825,656 1,184,001 1,660,665 5,339,704
Total SL8500 Cash Flow 768,600 50,976 346,146 471,871 648,495 905,874 3,191,962
Net Savings 178,877 69,576 255,207 353,785 535,506 754,791 2,147,742
Cumulative Net Savings 178,877 248,453 503,660 857,445 1,392,951 2,147,742

Entry Midrange Large Enterprise
Oracle
IBM
TS3500
TS3310
TS3100 / TS3200
SL8500
SL3000
SL500
SL24/48
Oracle Tape Library Portfolio vs. IBM
SL24 / 48
TS3100 /
TS3200
Max Slots 24 / 48 24 / 48
Max Drives
1FH / 2FH
2HH / 4HH
1FH / 2FH
2HH / 4HH
SL500 TS3310
Max Slots 575 401
Max Drives 18 18
SL3000 TS3500
Max Slots 5,925 20,000 (LTO)
Max Drives 56 192
SL8500 TS3500
Max Slots 100,000 300,000 (LTO)
Max Drives 640 2,700
Oracle SL8500 Advantages
Scalability #1 in Factory-out Market Share for
>1,000 slot tape libraries
Performance 2.4x faster robotic performance
Up to 40x more parallel robotic
operations
Over 5x faster throughput*
Availability Only vendor with redundant and non-
disruptive robotics and electronics
Eco-Savings Save up to 5x on floor space*
2x power savings* Advantage with T10000C

SL8500 Comparison Summary
Benefit Feature StorageTek SL8500 IBM TS3500
Manage
Growth
Scalability 100,000 Slots
640 Drives
300,000 LTO
225,000 Enterprise
2,700 Drives
Non-Disruptive Growth
including Connecting
Libraries
 X
Capacity on Demand  X
Limited to Base, HD Frames
Robotic Performance
(6,000 slots) 900 EPH 600 EPH
Reduce Costs
Seamless Mixed Media  X
Dedicated Frames
Library Power Consumption
(64 drive slots – max continuous watts) 320 735
Floor Space (6,000 slots) 140.6 Sq Ft
201.2 Sq Ft
(All HD Frames)
Max Density (20 PB) 174.8 TB/Sq Ft 52.8 TB/Sq Ft
Increase
Availability
Redundant and Hot-
swappable Library Electronics  X
Non-disruptive Redundant
Robotics  X
Service requires downtime
Quad-Redundant and
Hot-Swappable  X

• RealTime Growth:
add capacity and/or
performance without
disruption by hot-attaching
pass-through ports to
connect libraries
• Capacity on Demand: 250
/ 500 slot increments vs.
TS3500 in base/HD frame
• Mixed Media:
TS3500 requires dedicated
frames to each media type
MANAGE GROWTH
• Any Cartridge Any Slot
Technology: seamless
mixed media and drive
support
• Partitioning: TS3500 does
not allow mixed media
• Power: fewer AC drops, up
to 3x savings
• Floor Space: up to 2x
savings
• Up to 2.4x faster robotic
performance
REDUCE COSTS MINIMIZE RISK
SL8500 Key Advantages over IBM T3500
TS3500
64 – 20,087 LTO / Lib
58 – 15,260 Ent / Lib
1 - 192 Tape Drives
Connect up to 15 libraries
Up to 224 I/E Slots)
Oracle Differentiator
SL8500
1448 - 100,000 Slots
1 - 640 Tape Drives
39 to 78 CAP Slots /
library
up to 780 in complex
• Non-Disruptive Redundant
Robotics & Electronics:
includes servicing non-
disruptively
• Control Path: TS3500 has
no dedicated control path
• Cartridge handling: grab &
lift vs. hook & drag (less
wear on cartridges)
• OKM Encryption: more
robust enterprise-class
solution

Agenda
• Solution Overview: ZFS Storage Appliance
for BU&R of Exadata
• Competition
• Resources

ExaBackup
Spotting Opportunities
Horizontal Issues Vertical Industries
Primary
Opportunities
 Recent failed backup
and/or restore
 Not meeting SLA for backup
and restore (can't backup or
restore within given
timeframe).
 Existing solution is too
complex
 Financial Services
 Telco
 Healthcare
 Manufacturing
 Government
Secondary
Opportunities
 Catalyst event: datacenter
refresh, consolidation, new
app deployment or upgrade,
server virtualization
 Tape replacement initiative
 Pending license renewal for
3rd party BU&R application

ExaBackup
Exploratory Questions
• How many DB’s are hosted on your Exadata(s)?
• What are their sizes?
• Do they all have the same RTO (Recovery Time
Objective)? If not, which have more/less stringent RTO’s?
• Are you achieving this RTO now?
• How are long term storage/retention objectives met?

ExaBackup
Maximizing Revenue Opportunities
Core
Feature these
products for
BU&R; use as
wedge for add-on
business
Extend
Upsell BU&R
deals with these
products
Comprehensive
Creatively leverage
additional revenue
outside of BU&R
ZFS 7420C*
plus Premier support
Migration
services
Educational
services
Capacity
Upgrades
Database version
support: Standby,
Development, Q/A
Test, Reporting,
Training, etc.
Backup support for DB-related apps:
Email, ERP, CRM, SCM, DSS,
Virtualization etc.
ACS
implementation
services
* Utilize the ZFSSA simulator
for a winning demonstrations
of unique system capabilities.

Optional Management Services
Backup and Restore Services
• Designed to address your need for data
protection
• A minimum 95% success rate for
backups and a 99% success rate for
restores, giving you confidence that your
data is protected
• Manage all pieces of the backup puzzle
– RMAN disk backup
– Tape drive, media and library management
– Master/Media Server and Client management

ExaBackup
Competing Against NetApp
Strengths
• Storage Industry leader (#2 NAS
vendor) with loyal customer base
• Extensive application integration
• Strong Oracle partnership and
integration with Enterprise Manager,
Secure Backup, ASM, RMAN (“Easy
buttons” abound)
- SnapManager for Oracle
Weaknesses
• Expensive HW, SW & maintenance costs:
Closed and proprietary enclosures and
ONTAP operating system limit ability to
leverage industry standard technology
• Limited backup & restore throughputs
(2.7TB/hr and 5.4TB/hr, respectively, for
3170C – OOW 2010) compared to 9TB/hr
and 7TB/hr for 7420C
Why Oracle Wins
• ZFS 7420C provides ~130% the restore throughput of 3170C enabling customers to get back to
business after an outage more quickly.
• ZFS 7420C provides over 200% greater backup throughput enabling more stringent backup
window requirements.

ExaBackup
Competing Against EMC Data Domain
Strengths
• Variable block dedupe is effective with
backups
• Deduped replication (optional)
• Compression included
• 3rd Party Integration
- Oracle RMAN, NBU (OST), EBS,
etc
Weaknesses
• Expensive
- DD880 48TB $460,000
• Replication extra
- DD880 $70,000
• Poor management tools
- No capacity planning
• Dedupe of Oracle DB’s ~6.3:1 w/RMAN
incrementals – some customers report
getting 4-10:1 w/ZFS compression (EMC
Tech doc H6835)
• Poor RMAN backup and restore
throughput (2.8TB/hr and 2.3TB/hr
respectively for DD880 – EMC Tech doc
H6835)Why Oracle Wins
• ZFS 7420C has greater than 200% restore throughput than more costly
DD880

ExaBackup
Strategy
• DD needs to do daily full backups to reach it’s
stated dedupe ratio.
- Customers won’t see this result if doing daily
incrementals and weekly fulls
- Crates unnecessary load on Exadata IB
network and I/O on DB nodes further
reducing claimed backup throughput
- Advanced Compression and EHCC will
provide similar or better space savings than
DD dedupe.
- If using RMAN backup images (and
incremental merge), ZFS compression may
be used. This method would also obviate
DD’s dedupe feature.
- Data Domain, and others, want customers to
backup > dedupe > compress > encrypt in
that order so that they can remain relevant.
Disrupt this cycle by leveraging various
Oracle compression methods and
encryption.
- Make the issue recovery throughput/RTO

ExaBackup
What to say
• Extol the virtues of EHCC and Advanced
Compression. This will help to obviate DD’s
space savings story. DD won’t be able to
dedupe (much) if the tables are already
compressed. Only ZFSSA and Axiom enable
access to EHCC’d tables without first
uncompressing. Lastly, it also takes their
replication out of the deal.
• If the customer (for whatever reason) doesn’t do
EHCC or any other DB compression, ZFS
compression provides about the same space
savings for RMAN backups as DD dedupe – for
a lot less $.
• Customer shouldn’t have to do daily full BU’s to
realize DD’s space savings. It creates additional
load on the network which makes it unlikely that
they’ll see DD’s claimed BU throughputs
• Make the issue recovery throughput/RTO

Agenda
for BU&R of Exadata
• Value Proposition / Key Messages
• Competition
• Resources

Solution Description
• The ZFS Storage appliance is a backup target for RMAN
from Exadata. Connection is direct via IPoIB.
Configuration details & tuning are available in Technical
WP here.
• Potential deployment scenarios
Scenario 1: The ZFSSA will be used as the disk target in a D2D
environment in cooperation with RMAN.
Scenario 2: The ZFSSA is a backup target for RMAN. RMAN pulls
backup from ZFSSA then pushes to tape. Restores from tape are
direct and managed by RMAN
Scenario 3: The ZFSSA is a backup target for RMAN then backed up to
tape via NDMP. Restores from tape are to ZFSSA then RMAN restores
from ZFSSA to DBM
For Exadata customers with more stringent RPO/RTO, a DR architecture
with a 2nd Exadata is recommended for data protection.

Solution Deployment Scenarios
Scenario 1: Disk to Disk
FC
RMAN
IPoIB or 10GbE

Scenario 1: Pros & Cons
Pros
• No 3rd party BU&R licenses to
procure and manage
- No agent to install on DBM
• Quick restores and backups
- 9TB/hr backup
- 7TB/hr restore
• Not exclusive to tape – may be
added later
• Oracle tested, validated,
supported
• Faster/easier to implement than
“roll your own” IB media server
• Compliments RMAN corruption
detection with ZFS
checksumming and self healing
Cons
• No “SWITCH…TO COPY”
command

Scenario 2: Disk to Disk to Tape
FC
RMAN
IPoIB or 10GbE
BU 2 Tape #1
BU 2 & Restore
from Tape #2

Pros
• Preserve “versions” on tape
• Leverage existing tape
infrastructure
• RMAN aware backups on tape:
BACKUP BACKUPSET
• Recovery from tape 1 step
process
• Lower TCO for long term storage
detection with ZFS
Cons
• Additional load on DB servers for
backup to tape
• Control of back given to 3rd party
backup vendor
command

Scenario 3: Disk to Disk to Tape
FC
RMAN
IPoIB or 10GbE
NDMP to Tape

Pros
• Preserve “versions” on tape
• Leverage existing tape
infrastructure
• No DB server resources for
moving to tape
• No agent to install on DBM
detection with ZFS
capabilities
Cons
• No “RMAN aware” backup on
tape
• 2 step restore process (tape >
ZFSSA > RMAN)
command

ZFSSA BU&R for Exadata
Configuration Notes
• 7420C
- Each head: 2x8-core CPU’s, 128GB DRAM, Read SSD’s not
necessary
• 2-8 disk trays
- 1st tray has 4 Write SSD’s & 20 HDD’s
- Additional trays have 20 HDD’s
- RAIDZ
- Throughputs may vary with RAID level and client (Exadata)
configuration/tuning
- RAID1 will improve performance of RMAN incremental merge and
ancillary app’s if ZFSSA is multipurposed (snaps/clones, etc.)
- Pool and share configuration guidance in the technical WP here.
• Direct connect to Exadata
- Only way to leverage RMAN incremental merge to obviate
competitors feature/functionality

Configuration Notes
• Compression
- EHCC compression is table compression, meaning it is applied to tables inside the
database.
- The Advanced Compression Option (ACO) is a separately licensed database
option that has several compression features – Hybrid Columnar Compression
OLTP table compression, SecureFiles Compression and Deduplication, Data Pump
export compression, RMAN backup compression, and Data Guard redo transport
compression.
- RMAN backup compression is part of the ACO.
- ZFS compression is part of the ZFSSA, HCC is a separately licensed feature and
requires ACO.
If a table is compressed with EHCC, then it can only be read when it is stored on Exadata or
another HCC-enabled platform like ZFSSA or Axiom. If that table is moved to non-HCC
storage, then it must be uncompressed before it can be read (or modified) - this is
supported using ALTER TABLE MOVE or online redefinition as of 11.2.0.2. Could require
10-15x additional disk space.
The customer should compare and contrast the performance and space savings of enabling
compression at various levels - though on Exadata it's pretty clear that EHCC table
compression will give tremendous space savings AND performance boosts for read-only
and read-mostly scenarios, so the real question is whether RMAN backup compression or
ZFSSA compression makes more sense, and the answer to that question will vary based
on the environment.

General Considerations*
• Recommendations
- Size for capacity as throughput performance doesn’t vary
significantly with disk tray count after 4 trays
- Most restore errors arise because the restore occurs over 2 or
more shifts. Recommend RTO’s of 5 hours or less
- In 11gr2/Exadata environments:
• Use RMAN “incremental merge” image backups
• Daily snaps for version preservation
- For backing up the ZFSSA to tape, see documentation here.
- For backing up Exadata to tape, see here.
* See Resources slide for links to more detailed sizing/configuration information

Agenda
for BU&R of Exadata
• Competition
• Resources

Customer Wins
• Coming soon

Sales Resources
• RMAN Best Practices
- Oracle Database Backup and Recovery Best Practices & New Features
- Recovery Manager (RMAN) Configuration and Perfromance Tuning Best Practices
- VLDB Backup & Recovery Best Practices
More available on database.us.oracle.com:
Collateral tab > Sub Area contains “Backup and Recovery”

Sales Resources
• Tools
- Value Navigator: http://tools-insight.oraclecorp.com/
- ZFSSA simulator
• Collateral
- Exadata Resource Center
- Unified Storage on my.oracle
- Tape on my.oracle
- White papers, MAA Guides, Implementation Guides
- All things Exadata
• Web and Online Communities
- ZFS_STORAGE_WW@oracle.com (internal)
- Exadata_WW@oracle.com (internal)
- Unified Storage Forum: http://myforums.oracle.com/jive3/forum.jspa?forumID=4430
(internal)
- Oracle.com: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/servers-storage/storage/unified-
storage/index.html

Exa backup playbook

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Exa backup playbook

More from solarisyougood

Recently uploaded

Exa backup playbook