23
Multi-Site Replication on a Single- Site Budget Kyle Berger

Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Compellent C-Drive 2009 Customer Conference, May 2009. Presentation on using remote replication for DR given by Kyle Berger, Executive Director of Technology for Alvarado ISD, Texas.

Citation preview

Page 1: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site BudgetKyle Berger

Page 2: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Kyle Berger Biography

Executive Director of Technology

Technology Administrator of the Year for Texas

Oversee all aspects of educational technology

Technology administrator in education for over 10 years

Featured in industry publications for proven ROI, technology advancements within the K-12 market

Photo Courtesy: The Alvarado Star

Page 3: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Alvarado Independent School District – Texas

K-12 – 3,200 students 7 site locations spread

over 96 square miles 2,000 desktops 900 laptops –every

student in grades 4-6 13 TB Compellent

SAN since 2007

Page 4: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Audience Response Requested

1-1000 1001-3000 3001-5000 5001-8000 8001-1000 1001+

17% 17% 17%17%17%17%

1. 1-1000

2. 1001-3000

3. 3001-5000

4. 5001-8000

5. 8001-10,000

6. 10,001 +

Q: Number of end users in your organization?

Page 5: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Critical Server Applications and Storage

Key Network Software– Novell– GroupWise– Skyward (student information system)– RSCCC ( HR and finance software)

Storage– 4,000 network accounts

Page 6: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

IT Challenges

Funding– K- 12 funding in regards to

technology– Never guaranteed– Always changing

Reliability as well as accessibility

– 24/7 access to data– Protection and recovery is key– Data integrity

Page 7: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

What We Were Looking For

Reliable Cost effective Disaster recovery,

co-location– True ROI for the

school district – Little overhead

Page 8: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Do have the same challenge?

Yes Some No Don't Want

25% 25%25%25%

Q: Do you have the same challenges?

1. Yes

2. To some degree

3. No

4. Don’t want to think about it

Page 9: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

The Solution

A DR consortium between K-12 schools

Connect Compellent systems across TX

Multi-site replication with out added cost or overhead

Compellent’s replication software connects locations like a business enterprise

Page 10: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

How it Works

Using existing Internet bandwidth, dial up connections in off-peak hours

Schools replicate changed data from their primary SAN to another school’s primary location

Chargeback feature allows schools to recoup cost for storage use

Min of 500 gigs set aside for DRC usage Static mappings with ACL to allow for secure

communication between SANs

Page 11: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

The solution

Districts across Texas connected

ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Page 12: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Parameters of the DRC and Testing

DRC is user driven– User group board of directors

Quarterly health checks of Compellent device– Results given to members

Two annual enrollment periods into the DRC– Allow for data migration and

placement within the DRC

Data integrity tested twice a year between sites

Replication is encrypted between sites

Page 13: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Benefits of the Overall Solution

Leveraged current investment in SAN Added remote survivability at zero cost Lower data center footprint No added energy cost (true green co-locate) No need to learn a new system Support from your peers when you need it most Compliance of data security is a non issue

– Each district held to the same data standards for security

Page 14: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

ROI

Easy to establish, not extended cost outside of the SAN and its software

Compellent features and flexibility, leverage the investment for a ROI that goes beyond the initial investment

No added…– Energy cost – Bandwidth– Hosting fee – Cooling cost

Page 15: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Lessons Learned

Time and coordination of initial connection

Limited site connectivity Initial sync, available

bandwidth and data push User adoption – beyond

technology departments Different SAN versions? Remote site down times? Bandwidth throttling and

expectations Replication software not

frequent purchase first SAN

Page 16: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

The Future

5 school districts across Texas– End of 2009

Additional states– Jan 2010

Cross county – Multi-site DR for K-12 mission

critical applications

Disaster Recovery Consortium (DRC)

Page 17: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Audience Response Requested

25%

25%25%

25%

1 2 3 4

Q: What would you like to hear more about?

1. Technical information

2. Agreement between schools

3. ROI

4. None

Page 18: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

50%

50%

Audience Response Requested

1. Yes

2. No

Q: Would you like to join this or a similar solution?

Page 19: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Wrap Up!

Q & AKyle Berger

[email protected]

Pablo Coronado – EST Group

[email protected]

Page 20: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Session Evaluation

Please rate this session by responding to the following questions.

Your feedback helps us to improve the quality of future sessions.

Unlike the previous polling questions, your responses will not be visible on the screen but will be captured and recorded for the presenter to view offline.

Should you have additional feedback, please utilize one of the hard copy evaluation forms at the back of the room to provide us with your written comments.

Page 21: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Q: This subject is ____ to performing my job?

Not

App

licab

le

Slig

htly U

sefu

l

Impo

rtant

Ver

y Im

porta

nt

Crit

ical

20%

10%

50%

7%

13%

1. Not Applicable

2. Slightly Useful

3. Important

4. Very Important

5. Critical

Session Evaluation: Audience Response Requested

Page 22: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Session Evaluation: Audience Response Requested

A Lot

Les

s Det

ail

Les

s Det

ail

The

Sam

e Am

ount

...

Mor

e Det

ail

A Lot

Mor

e Det

ail

7%

30%27%

17%20%

1. A Lot Less Detail

2. Less Detail

3. The Same Amount of Detail

4. More Detail

5. A Lot More Detail

Q: I would like ____ in the material presented.

Page 23: Multi-Site Replication on a Single-Site Budget

Session Evaluation: Audience Response Requested

Poor

Bel

ow A

vera

ge

Ave

rage

Good

Exc

eptio

nal

13%

23%

27%

13%

23%

1. Poor

2. Below Average

3. Average

4. Good

5. Exceptional

Q: I would rate the presenter as ____.