backup to the future

BACKUP TO THE FUTURE The Evolution of Data Protection Backup is broken, but a single technology won’t fix it. Rather, it will be a combination of advances that alters the data-protection landscape – in terms of both technology and vendors – to solve the backup-and-recovery problems that currently plague IT professionals.

KEY FINDINGS • Virtualization enabled a group of startups to challenge the incumbent backup vendors that have controlled the backup-and-recovery market for decades. • All of the VM-specific backup vendors have experienced rapid growth, largely at the expense of entrenched vendors that were relatively slow to address the new requirements of backing up virtual environments. • In our conversations with end users that have chosen VM-only backup applications, we find that by far the two main reasons for their choice are simple: ease of use and relatively low cost. • As data protection evolves, IT professionals will begin to think in terms of information (or data) management rather than ‘siloed’ backup/recovery, businesscontinuity, disaster-recovery and archiving operations.

APRIL 2014 451 RESEARCH: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

© 2014 451 RESEARCH, LLC AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

ABOUT 451 RESEARCH

451 Research is a leading global analyst and data company focused on the business of enterprise IT innovation. Clients of the company — at end-user, service-provider, vendor and investor organizations — rely on 451 Research’s insight through a range of syndicated research and advisory services to support both strategic and tactical decision-making. © 2014 451 Research, LLC and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this publication, in whole or in part, in any form without prior written permission is forbidden. The terms of use regarding distribution, both internally and externally, shall be governed by the terms laid out in your Service Agreement with 451 Research and/or its Affiliates. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. 451 Research disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information. Although 451 Research may discuss legal issues related to the information technology business, 451 Research does not provide legal advice or services and their research should not be construed or used as such. 451 Research shall have no liability for errors, omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations thereof. The reader assumes sole responsibility for the selection of these materials to achieve its intended results. The opinions expressed herein are subject to change without notice.

New York

London

20 West 37th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212.505.3030 Fax: 212.505.2630

37-41 Gower Street London, UK WC1E 6HH Phone: +44 (0)20.7299.7765 Fax: +44 (0)20.7299.7799

San Francisco

Boston

140 Geary Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415.989.1555 Fax: 415.989.1558

125 Broad Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617.275.8818 Fax: 617.261.0688

451 RESEARCH: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT


Introduction It seems every report on backup concludes that “backup is broken.” This is not news to anybody. Fewer reports guide you towards a solution; fortunately, this is one of them. 451 Research has provided a thoughtful and considered investigation into the use of array-based snapshots to solve the broken backup dilemma. Senior Analyst Dave Simpson summarizes both the problem and the solution succinctly: One obvious driver [of using snapshots] is that data stores have grown to the point where it’s often impossible to back them up within allotted backup windows. Snapshot-based ‘backup’ solves that problem, but even more importantly snapshots provide almost instantaneous restores. Rapid, low impact data protection with nearly instant restore has long been on the wish list of IT organizations. The best way to achieve this is using snapshots, but users have been stymied by a mix of different array tools, lack of application and hypervisor integration, and complex, script-based recovery procedures. As a pioneer of multi-vendor snapshot management, CommVault has focused on resolving these issues across a wide range of hardware vendors, allowing users to finally derive the full value of investments made in storage array technology. We hope you find the information in this report a useful guide on your way to making the best possible use of snapshot technology for your organization. It is provided with our compliments.

CommVault Regional Offices United States • Europe • Middle East & Africa

•

Asia-Pacific

•

Latin America & Caribbean Canada

•

India

•

Oceania

1999-2014 CommVault Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. CommVault, CommVault and logo, the “CV” logo, CommVault Systems, Solving Forward, SIM, Singular Information Management, Simpana, Simpana OnePass, CommVault Galaxy, Unified Data Management, QiNetix, Quick Recovery, QR, CommNet, GridStor, Vault Tracker, InnerVault, QuickSnap, QSnap, Recovery Director, CommServe, CommCell, IntelliSnap, ROMS, CommVault Edge, and CommValue, are trademarks or registered trademarks of CommVault Systems, Inc. All other third party brands, products, service names, trademarks, or registered service marks are the property of and used to identify the products or services of their respective owners. All specifications are subject to change without notice.

©

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

1.1 KEY FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 1: Storage Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3 METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

SECTION 2: VIRTUALIZATION ALTERS THE TECHNOLOGY AND VENDOR LANDSCAPES

8

Figure 2: Drivers of Capacity Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3: Virtualization Sector Growth and Share Overview . . . . . . . 2.1 VENDOR SHIFTS: RISE OF THE VM SPECIALISTS . . . . . . . . . . .

9 9

Figure 4: Usage of Vendors/Products for Protecting VMs - Part 1 . . . . . 13 Figure 5: Usage of Vendors/Products for Protecting VMs - Part 2 . . . . . 14 2.2 TECHNOLOGY SHIFTS: HOW DO USERS BACK UP VMS? . . . . . . . . 15 Figure 6: Virtual Infrastructure Backup Approaches – Time Series . . . . .15

SECTION 3: CLOUD-BASED DATA PROTECTION: AFFORDABLE DR FOR SMBS

18

3.1 MARKET SIZING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 7: Online Backup/Recovery Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Figure 8: Cloud Archiving Revenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.2 WHAT IS HYBRID CLOUD BACKUP? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3 HYBRID CLOUD BACKUP USHERS IN NEW PLAYERS . . . . . . . . . . 21 3.4 SAAS CLOUD-TO-CLOUD BACKUP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

3.5 DRAWBACKS TO CLOUD-BASED DATA PROTECTION . . . . . . . . . . 23

SECTION 4: ARRAY-BASED SNAPSHOTS AND REPLICATION FOR DATA PROTECTION

24

4.1 ENTERPRISES SHIFT TOWARD SNAPSHOTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 9: Primary Backup Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 4.2 ADVANTAGES OF SNAPSHOTS + REPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.3 THE PLAYERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

ii

BACKUP TO THE FUTURE


SECTION 5: CAN ‘COPY DATA MANAGEMENT’ REPLACE TRADITIONAL DATA PROTECTION?

28

5.1 WHAT PROBLEMS DOES IT SOLVE? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5.2 HOW DOES IT WORK? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.3 OTHER PLAYERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

SECTION 6: DATA PROTECTION M&A, IPOS, VC FUNDING

32

6.1 MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Figure 10: Data Protection M&A: 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6.2 IPOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6.3 VENTURE CAPITAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Figure 11: VC For Data-Protection Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

INDEX OF COMPANIES



39

iii

The following is an excerpt from an independently published 451 Research report, ‘Backup to the Future’ released in April 2014. To purchase the full report or to learn about additional 451 Research services, please visit https://451research.com/products or email [email protected].

SECTION 1 Executive Summary 1.2 INTRODUCTION Back in 2006, 451 Research published a report, Total Recall: Challenges and Opportunities for the Data-Protection Industry, which highlighted the emergence of three ‘next generation’ data-protection technologies – data de-duplication, virtual tape libraries (VTLs) and continuous data protection (CDP) – that would potentially reshape the way IT organizations protect their data. Fast forward almost a decade, and it’s clear that while data protection has undoubtedly changed significantly – in particular by the impact of data de-duplication – many of the problems of a decade ago still exist. In fact, many of these problems have become even more pronounced due to the cumulative challenges presented by factors such as explosive data growth, shrinking backup windows, server virtualization, and the emergence of cloud and mobile applications. As a result, in 2014 we see a new wave of ‘next generation’ data-protection technologies emerging that promise to solve some of these problems. These approaches include new twists on VM-centric backup, array snapshot-oriented backup, copy data management, and hybrid cloud backup.

Backup is Broken “Backup is broken” has become an all-too-familiar complaint among storage managers and administrators, as well as a rallying cry for backup/recovery vendors that advocate the ‘modernization’ of data protection. ‘Modern’ data-protection architectures are usually pitted against ‘traditional’ methods, which typically equate to (a) scheduled backups, (b) reliance on tape for backup media and (c) ‘pre-virtualization’ backup/recovery architectures. The ‘old way’ of protecting data consisted of streaming data from production servers to backup/media servers to back-end tape repositories where data was stored in a proprietary format. New methodologies are obviously needed for today’s data-protection requirements, but just what does ‘modernization’ mean?



1

First, let’s review why backup is broken, bearing in mind that it has been in a state of disrepair for quite a long time. Backup windows are shrinking, and users often find it difficult – or even impossible – to complete their backups in the allotted time. This is certainly true of full backups, but in some circumstances, IT organizations can’t even complete incremental backups within the allotted backup window, particularly if they’re using the standard technique of performing nightly incremental backups and weekly full ones, which in turn add a lot of complexity to the restore and disaster-recovery scenarios. Meanwhile, server virtualization exacerbated the problem of shrinking backup windows as VMs reached higher and higher densities. These problems originally led to the advent of technologies such as CDP, disk-based backup and data de-duplication, and because the problem still didn’t go away, we are seeing renewed interest in techniques such as CDP (where everything is backed up in real time as changes occur). But most IT organizations are still using traditional methods of data protection. In fact, according to a recent study conducted by TheInfoPro (a 451 Research service), at midsized and large enterprises, 52% of backup data is still on tape. Many workarounds have been developed to meet the backup-window problem, but they are just that: workarounds. However, as we’ll see throughout this report, technologies have emerged that promise new techniques for tackling backup and recovery that could enable storage administrators to break the shackles of traditional backup/recovery methodologies and data-protection ‘silos’ – or what are sometimes referred to as ‘accidental architectures.’

From Data-Protection Silos to Holistic Data Management Today, data protection is often implemented in silos that can include backup and recovery, archiving, snapshots, replication and continuous-availability (or business-continuity) products – often from different vendors. The goal, however, is to unify data protection (using as few vendors as possible) into what might be better called data management – either via entirely new products or by tightly integrating existing products and implementing a common management platform. This theme echoes throughout this report, but we focus on it specifically in Section 5, where we take a look at ‘copy data management’ and related technologies that have recently emerged with the promise of simplifying data protection while at the same time reducing costs. We are also seeing a trend toward capturing and storing data in native formats, as opposed to the proprietary formats that are often used in backup stores. This promises to significantly reduce recovery times, with the added benefit of making it easier to re-purpose data (without necessarily having to make physical copies) for a wide variety of uses. In other words, why just store data in dormant backup pools when you can liberate this ‘backup’ data for a variety of other applications? The goal is to use backup data as something more than just an insurance policy that protects an organization in case of failures.

2



A closely related trend is to tie platforms for data protection, or data management, more tightly into primary storage, which we cover in Section 4, where we look at the approach of using array-based snapshots – in conjunction with traditional backup/recovery tools – as the cornerstone for modern data protection.

Data Protection Spending on the Rise The result of all these data-protection problems is that end users continue to spend more and more on backup and recovery. According to a 2013 TheInfoPro study of IT professionals at midsized and large enterprises, 33% of the organizations surveyed planned to increase spending on backup software, while 51% expected spending on data protection to remain about the same, and only 10% planned to decrease spending on backup and recovery software. Shouldn’t all of the recent advances – including virtualization, cloudbased data protection, and increased competition from startups – be contributing to a decrease in spending? Data-protection problems are so acute that backup redesign has become a top storage initiative. In fact, backup redesign came in at number 2 out of 21 storage priorities, and was cited as a top storage priority by 19% of the participants in the study, as shown in Figure 1. DR redesign also ranked high on the IT professionals’ to-do lists. FIGURE 1: STORAGE PROJECTS Technology Refresh and Capacity Expansion

39%

Backup Redesign

19%

DR Redesign

9%

Archiving

9%

Storage Virtualization

9%

Consolidation

8%

Moving Datacenter

8%

Supporting Server Virtualization

7%

Storage Network Redesign

6%

Reporting/Monitoring/Forecasting

6%

Replication

6%

Optimizing Storage

6%

On-premise Cloud Storage

6%

Evaluate Vendors/Technologies

6%

Big Data

6%

New/Replatformed Applications

5%

Vendor Replacement/Reduction

4%

Tuning for Performance

4%

Storage Rearchitecture

4%

Tiering Strategy

4%

De-duplication

4%


OTHER PROJECTS MENTIONED

Digital Content

External Cloud Storage

Converged Computing

Regulatory Compliance

Cost Reduction

Retention Policy

Encryption

Scale-out NAS

File Sharing and Synchronization

Solid-state


3

1.3 METHODOLOGY This report on data protection is based on a series of in-depth interviews with a variety of stakeholders in the industry, including IT managers at end-user organizations across multiple sectors, technology vendors, managed service providers and VCs, as well as results of TheInfoPro Storage Study. This research was supplemented by additional primary research, including attendance at a number of trade shows and industry events. Reports such as this one represent a holistic perspective on key emerging markets in the enterprise IT space. These markets evolve quickly, though, so 451 Research offers additional services that provide critical marketplace updates. These updated reports and perspectives are presented on a daily basis via the company’s core intelligence service – 451 Market Insight. Forward-looking M&A analysis and perspectives on strategic acquisitions and the liquidity environment for technology companies are also updated regularly via 451 Market Insight, which is backed by the industry-leading 451 M&A KnowledgeBase. Emerging technologies and markets are also covered in additional 451 practices, including our CloudScape, Datacenter Technologies (DCT), Enterprise Security, Information Management, Infrastructure Computing for the Enterprise (ICE) and 451 Market Monitor services. All of these 451 services, which are accessible via the Web, provide critical and timely analysis specifically focused on the business of enterprise IT innovation. This report was written by Dave Simpson, Senior Analyst, Storage. Any questions about the methodology should be addressed to Dave at: [email protected].

Dave Simpson – Senior Analyst, Storage Dave Simpson leads the company’s research activities around data protection, in particular the techniques driven by emerging technologies and business models, such as virtualization and cloud. Accordingly, Dave serves as the lead analyst for technologies including backup and recovery, data de-duplication, disaster recovery, replication and high availability. Prior to joining 451 Research, Dave was the Editor-in-Chief of InfoStor. com, a website focused 100% on the data storage market targeting IT end users, storage channel professionals, vendors and investors. Dave launched InfoStor in 1997. Prior to launching InfoStor, Dave held Senior Editor positions at a number of publications, including Datamation, Client/Server Today, Digital News & Review, Systems Integration and Mini-Micro Systems. He has been covering the IT industry for more than 25 years. For more information about 451 Research, please go to: www.451research.com

4



SECTION 4 Array-Based Snapshots and Replication for Data Protection The previous section of this report pertained primarily to changes in data protection in the SMB segment of the IT market. This section focuses on one of the key changes in enterprise data protection: the increasing use of disk array-based snapshots and replication as a cornerstone for data protection.

4.1 ENTERPRISES SHIFT TOWARD SNAPSHOTS It is important to note that in the context of this report, we are referring to array-based snapshots – also referred to as storage snapshots, SAN snapshots or hardware snapshots because they take place on, and are created by, disk arrays. This is not to be confused with snapshots taken by the virtualization hypervisor. There’s nothing new about hardware-based snapshots; they’ve been around for decades, and all of the disk array manufacturers have tools to manage snapshots taken on their disk arrays. However, those tools can be expensive and proprietary (limited to a specific vendor’s arrays), and they often require scripting by end users. In addition, snapshot management tools from the array vendors are typically not application-aware. What’s new in this space is the combined use of array-based snapshots and replication integrated with certain elements of traditional backup/recovery software (e.g., cataloging, indexing) in tools that can be used in heterogeneous array environments. Although it can be expensive – and space-consuming because the snapshots reside on primary disk – this approach combines the capabilities of traditional backup/recovery software with the advantages hardware-based snapshots and replication. As shown in Figure 9, the majority (62%) of midsized and large enterprises rely solely on traditional backup software for data protection, according to our end-user study. But over the past couple of years, we’ve seen increased use of array-based snapshots and replication as a primary method of data protection. For example, in the most recent study, 24% of participants said they rely on snapshots/replication with subsequent backup performed by traditional backup software; 10% use snapshots and replication cataloged/indexed by – and integrated with – backup software; and 4% rely only on snapshots and replication for data protection (in other words, they do not use traditional backup software).



5

FIGURE 9: PRIMARY BACKUP METHOD What is your primary method of backup?

3% Snapshots/replication only, without backup software

10%

Snapshots/replication managed and/ or cataloged by backup software

62%

24%

Snapshots/replication, then backup software Traditional backup software only

However, the use of snapshots and replication for data protection is a slowly evolving trend; the percentage of study participants using this methodology in lieu of traditional backup software is up only slightly from the previous year. (It’s important to note again that this study focused on midsized and large enterprises, and did not include SMBs.) We do not anticipate widespread adoption in 2014; however, we think this will develop into a major trend in the 2015-16 time frame, and that it will eventually emerge as a clear-cut alternative to traditional backup software – at least in high-end environments that rely heavily on array-based snapshots and replication. We expect the trend toward using array-based snapshots in conjunction with backup software to accelerate, particularly in large-scale NAS and database environments, which can pose problems when using traditional backup software alone. In fact it’s possible that within a few years, some larger IT organizations will forgo traditional backup applications altogether and make array-based snapshots their primary form of data protection. However, we think that will, in almost all cases, include the use of both replication and traditional backup functions such as indexing and cataloging to manage the snapshots.

6



4.2 ADVANTAGES OF SNAPSHOTS + REPLICATION There are a number of forces behind the increased interest in array-based snapshots for data protection. One obvious driver is that data stores have grown to the point where it’s often impossible to back them up within allotted backup windows. Snapshot-based ‘backup’ solves that problem, but even more importantly snapshots provide almost instantaneous restores. In addition, servers don’t have enough resources to handle backups of large data sets, and snapshots offload this task to disk arrays. Another reason for increased interest in array-based snapshots is that, unlike traditional backup applications, snapshots do not negatively impact production server performance. As a result, snapshots can be taken very frequently. Snapshots are taken almost instantaneously, thus providing the ability to meet nearzero RPOs. Although reducing RPOs is definitely driving adoption of array-based snapshots for data protection, our interviews with end users suggest that speed of recovery is the number-one driving force behind adoption. This is in large part because the percentage of data considered by IT professionals to be mission-critical is growing rapidly, and traditional recovery methods are incapable of quickly restoring huge amounts of data. The primary drawback to using array-based snapshots and replication in conjunction with elements of traditional backup software is that it’s expensive. And, because they reside on the primary storage device, snapshots alone do not protect against disasters at the primary site, which is why snapshots are combined with replication for true data protection and DR. In other words, snapshots are not really backups until they are replicated to another storage system. Although some users consider snapshots combined with replication to constitute a solid data-protection strategy, we think the emerging trend in this space is toward combining elements of traditional backup/recovery software (such as cataloguing, indexing and monitoring) with array-based snapshots and replication. The ideal implementation is heterogeneous (working with multiple vendors’ arrays), and the clear-cut leader – at least for now – is CommVault.

4.3 THE PLAYERS Among backup/recovery vendors, CommVault was first to recognize the need for snapshot management software that worked across heterogeneous arrays. In 2011, the company inked an OEM agreement with longtime reseller partner NetApp, under which the two integrated elements of CommVault’s Simpana data-protection software with NetApp arrays and software, including SnapMirror and SnapVault. (Somewhat confusingly, CommVault’s technology was originally referred to as SnapProtect, but NetApp now uses SnapProtect as the name for its OEM version of CommVault’s technology, which CommVault now refers to as IntelliSnap.) 451 RESEARCH: INFORMATION MANAGEMENT


7

In addition to NetApp arrays, CommVault supports virtually all other leading disk arrays, including those from EMC, IBM, HP, Dell and Hitachi Data Systems (a CommVault Simpana reseller), as well as arrays from Fujitsu (an IntelliSnap reseller) and Nimble Storage. All of these vendors are in CommVault’s IntelliSnap Connect Program. IntelliSnap includes a number of snapshot management features, including execution of snapshot and clone calls, indexing, cataloging, re-syncs, mounts, dismounts, application integration, tape backup/management and other functions. The software integrates with disk arrays via vendor APIs. For snapshot management and recovery in heterogeneous environments, CommVault offers IntelliSnap Recovery Manager software, which, unlike previous implementations of IntelliSnap, does not require use of the company’s Simpana software – end users’ existing backup software can be used in conjunction with IntelliSnap snapshot management software. IntelliSnap Recovery Manager does not require custom scripting, and works with applications such as Microsoft Exchange, SQL Server and SharePoint. Interestingly, most IntelliSnap users deploy the software in homogeneous environments (only on a single vendor’s arrays); however, we expect a trend toward heterogeneous implementations, although it may be another year or two before that trend picks up steam. As stated, we consider CommVault to be well ahead of other vendors in terms of backup software tailored to snapshot-based data protection in heterogeneous environments – particularly in terms of the breadth of its platform coverage (which includes virtually all major arrays). However, other data-protection software vendors are heading down the same path. For example, Symantec, Asigra and Catalogic Software (formed from the data-protection assets of Syncsort) all have array snapshot management technology, albeit only for NetApp arrays and software, although these companies plan to expand their supported platforms. And EMC recently announced support for snapshot management on NetApp NAS arrays, as well as EMC Isilon and VNX arrays, in the 8.2 release of NetWorker (in addition to existing support for EMC’s block-level arrays). Veeam Software has also added support for array-based snapshot management in version 7 of its software, albeit only for HP’s StorServ and StoreVirtual disk arrays. Using array-based snapshots as a cornerstone for data protection – along with replication and snapshot indexing/cataloging software – is applicable only in relatively high-end environments that have already deployed disk arrays with snapshots and replication. But we expect the use of disk arrays with replication and snapshots to move into midrange environments, thus broadening the market for snapshot-based data protection.

8

