2017-01-24 04:27 AM - last edited on 2017-02-22 08:43 AM by alissa
I am hoping someone can help me out with some clarification. I have recently read something about the Australian Government losing all their data due to their Main Storage unit corrupting and mirroing that corruption to their BC unit. I have seen some Backup Vendors using this as a selling point for their backup product. Indicating that you should get your data off the Storage Vendor Realm to be protected from such an incident.
This has got me thinking about snapvault with the NetApp FAS units. Does this solution protect a BC unit from this sort of corruption?
I am no way experienced enough in this area to really understand the risks involved, but what I had figured is as follows. In a situation such as replication or mirroring, what ever is on the source volume will replicate to the destination volume. So if the unit corrupts, presuming it still manages to replicate, it will replicate that corruption to the destination unit/volume. In Snapvault, at least the way I have seen it, it will replicate the changes to the destination Unit and Volume, however since it will take a snapshot of the volume before hand, which is Read only and cannot be changed, those older snapshots will be safe from that corrupt replication?
What is everyone's experience, do you feel safe with SnapVault or do you still implement a backup with another vendor over and above this?