Mainframe backup TODAY

A study for lowering backup costs in mainframe environments

(c) 2011 by Pro-Art bvba – Brecht Arteel – info@pro-art.be

Introduction

� Is the Mainframe dead?

� Has it resurrected?� Has it resurrected?

� Applications migrations planned?

� Presentation based on a Pro-Art bvba study: an inquiry with companies within the Trends top-50 (Banking, Retailing, Manufacturing)

Mainframes anno 2005

� Most mainframe users predicted to use the mainframe just for a little longer

� Mainframe usage was still strategic for most users

� Mainframes still in use within major industry markets (banking, retail, manufacturing, ...)

� Planned application migrations towards Open Systems? Microsoft .Net? Java?

Mainframes anno 2011

� Importance of mainframe usage remains strategic

� Old customers orderred additional mainframes or � Old customers orderred additional mainframes or replaced the “old” ones (based on an inquiry in the top50 Belgian non-it companies)

� Application migrations failed or have proven to be not cost-efficient

� Most users confirm that their mainframe remains important and will stay for at least 3 more years.

Mainframe backups?

� Mainframe backups still happen rather traditionally

� Connectivity is not a problem (ESCON or FICON)� Connectivity is not a problem (ESCON or FICON)

� Performance is hardly an issue

� Capacity is almost never an issue (no rich content on mainframes)

� Is there an issue then?

Mainframe backup challenges

� Low volume but critical content, small tape cartridge capacity, many slots (SILO)

� Mainframe plays a vital role in batch � Mainframe plays a vital role in batch processing, reliability is key, a second copy of the backup can be important

� No global backup policy for mainframe and open systems

� Dedicated backup hardware for the mainframe only is not cost-efficient (OPEX and CAPEX level)

� Backup SILO robots like the StorageTekPowderhorn has a very large footprint in your datacenters

� Duplicating tapes consumes MIPS

Example

� Banking customer with an IBM Mainframe, around 1 TB backup data (all retention together)

� ESCON connected tape drives & robotics� ESCON connected tape drives & robotics

� Backup Infrastructure in use was out-dated

� Cost per TB of backup data was 1000% more expensive than

open system backup costs

� The actual costs where – compared with the costs of the

mainframe itself – small

� Tape handling for off-site backups was mandatory due to

the importance of the data – extra costs

� To them, no clear gain to make

2 Approaches possible

� Leave all like it is (no problems & cost is relate to the mainframe cost in total)

� Try to align open system backups & mainframe backups

� Backup tool can not be changed

� Non-intrusive is mandatory

� Cross-platform backup infrastructure (mainframe & OS)

� ESCON should be possible (FICON boards not common and

expensive)

� Robust & proven technology

How to start?

� Calculate costs of current hardware maintenance / year

� Estimate lifetime of the mainframe in place (how long will� Estimate lifetime of the mainframe in place (how long willthe MF still be used)

� Total cost = caculated cost x expected lifetime

� If total cost > 150k euro then GO

� DO NOT caculate using cost/TB, as mainframe backup is always much more expensive than Open Systems backup

Solutions - Luminex

� Luminex

� Channel Gateway

� Support for open systems� Support for open systems

� Uses existing disk storage as backup media (cost efficient)

� Emulates native MF tape drives such as 3480, 3490 or 3590 tape drives

Web: www.luminex.comlocally (close to Belgium) no real presence and knowledge

Solutions – Bus-Tech

� Bus-Tech (currently EMC)

� Mainframe Data Library (MDL)

� MDL-2000 and higher when in need of more than 1 ESCON need of more than 1 ESCON port

� Emulates tape drives known to the MF

� NFS towards external disk array (use existing storage!)

� Supported: IBM z/OS, MVS, VSE, VM, TPF and Unisys OS 2200

Web: www.bustech.comimplemented locally by Mainstorconcept who has in-house knowledge

Solutions - IBM

� IBM (using Diligent technology)

� IBM System Storage TS7680 ProtecTier Dedupe GWProtecTier Dedupe GW

� Deduplication on-board

� ESCON or FICON host connections

� In-line dedupe

� Clustering is possible

� Scales up to 1 PB

� Back-end storage is IBM only

� Not (yet) able to go direct totape

� Not (yet) able to replicatebetween systems

Solutions - Fujitsu

� Fujitsu

� Eternus CS High End C5 (fka CentricStor)

� Multi-platform solution� Multi-platform solution

� Using internal disk arrays

� Disks mainly used as “cache”, off-loaded to tape, independent of the backup solutions

� Fully redundancy, replication and clustering possible

� High end, High priced

What to choose?

� If only mainframe must be optimized then:

� No IBM Storage? Go for Luminex or BusTech

� IBM Storage? Stick with IBM� IBM Storage? Stick with IBM

� If Open Systems backups are also under stress

� Budget is tight: Luminex or BusTech

� Budget is not related to savings only: consider Fuijtsu

Example – what did they do?

� The banking customer as discussed earlier did:

� Calculation showed that ROI would be reached after 3 years, including HW purchase, 5 years of maintenance on the new solution (based on BusTech MDL – 2 units), usage of Tier1 storage including HW purchase, 5 years of maintenance on the new solution (based on BusTech MDL – 2 units), usage of Tier1 storage for keeping the backups and implementation costs

� Total implementation was less than 1 week

� RDP is possible in 15 minutes (involves only changing the NFS mount !!)

� Floor space gained over old tape infrastructure

� Off-site shipment of backups in-line with open system backups

� Global Conclusion: NO BRAINER

Questions?

� If you think you can gain from replacing your old large footprint MF backup hardware then do not hesitate toget in touch:get in touch:

� By email: info@pro-art.be

� By phone: +32 476 32 85 11

� Other questions? Ask them after the presentation or drop us an email.