Network requirements for EMC's MirrorView replication are really very much higher than for Veritas Replicator or for Oracle's Dataguard?
In a replication environment with mixed Windows (via VVR) and Solaris (some via VVR, some via Oracle) my client uses an average of 20%, peak 30%, of its 100Mbps link between its datacenter and its backup site. When the company decided to buy a new Clarion storage and move its existing Clarion to the backup site, the capacity planning for such new environment points to a 250Mbps link requirement.
How is it possible???
Are DataGuard and Veritas Volume Replicator 10 times more efficient than MirrorView? Sure, VVR and DG are supposed to be intelligent enough to optimize resources use, but it is very difficult to accept MirrorView so hungry for network.
I'd like to have a testemony or experience of someone who use MirrorView.
Thanks in advance,
Jose
This Question has been solved and asker verified All Experts Exchange premium technology solutions are available to subscription members.
Experts Exchange has been collecting answers to technology questions since 1996…3 million and counting! If you have a question, chances are we already have your answer.
If you can't find the exact answer you're looking for, ask our exclusive community of 50,000 experts. You’ll get a personalized answer from a trusted professional.
Thousands of free tech tips, tricks, how-to’s and tutorials are available in our peer reviewed articles section. See for yourself how smart our experts are, no login required.
Save solutions to your questions, answers you’ve discovered through searching plus helpful articles in your personal knowledgebase for easy future access.
Access the answers to your technology questions today.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Members of the expert community talk about why the experience at Experts Exchange is different than what you will find anywhere else.
Try it out and discover for yourself.
30-day free trial. Register in 60 seconds.
Join the community of experts here and help other tech pros by answering question in your area of expertise. You can earn FREE access to all Experts Exchange's premium features and resources.
I'd strongly recommend having a look a RecoverPoint/SE - it features data compression and some really brilliant recoverability options. And you won't need to upgrade the CX500.
More information here: http://brazil.emc.com/prod
Thanks for the response.
But the target point of my question still remains, althought better addressed by your comment.
As per the information at EMC site you recommends, RecoveryPoint has compression features. Are such capabilities enough to make it superior to MirrorView (by considering bandwiidth requirements) such that the link would be smaller of that required by MirrorView?
If so, RP + 250 Mbps link is a better choice than MV + 500 Mbps link, due lower expenses with telecommunications services. Is correct such conclusion?
Please note, my client needs is both replication and access to the remote storage in case of primary site failure.
Jose
>If so, RP + 250 Mbps link is a better choice than MV + 500 Mbps link, due lower expenses with telecommunications services. Is correct such conclusion?
Yes, RP is a better choice because it not only allows very granular recovery (you can recover to *any* point in time depending on how much disc space you've allocated to RecoverPoint for its journal), but it is very clever about how it handles a congested link. If it has plenty of dandwidth available, it operates in semi-synchronous mode. If that bandwidth is throttled, or the link is congested, it drops back to asynchronous mode until the available bandwidth improves. It also integrates very nicely with Replication Manager.
For me, RecoverPoint is the *best* asynchronous replication product in the marketplace today, and I'd choose it above MirrorView/A. MirrorView/S is the best product for true synchronous replication. From what you've posted about the existing environment, I'd expect you to need pretty much the same bandwidth as you're using now, except for the initial synchronisation of the replicated copy.
Business Accounts
Answer for Membership
by: meyersdPosted on 2008-07-08 at 16:07:27ID: 21959208
>Are DataGuard and Veritas Volume Replicator 10 times more efficient than MirrorView?
No - they're not. Since you already know the rate of change in the environment, you can be pretty sure that MirrorView will use the same bandwidth. The EMC capacity planning tools err on the side of caution.