Symmetrix Remote Data Facility Review
SRDF compared with EMC Recover Point has less capabilities but provides ​​reliability and stability.


Valuable Features

Reliability and stability, 3 SAN storage star replication (1 box only with storage cache, no disks).

Improvements to My Organization

Currently is not used but was implemented 4 years ago for UNIX filesystems and Oracle DB replication.

Room for Improvement

SRDF compared with EMC Recover Point has less capabilities, for ex. CDP (local or remote) is missing, only EMC assets compatibility, as a TCO is more expensive than implementing IBM SVC or EMC VPLEX virtualization and replication (more supported assets).

Use of Solution

2 years.

Deployment Issues

No.

Stability Issues

No.

Scalability Issues

No.

Customer Service and Technical Support

Customer Service:

Very good.

Technical Support:

Very good.

Previous Solutions

Because lack in systems heterogeneous support, only EMC storage, no CDP, no visual planned/unplanned switch framework for failover/failback.

Initial Setup

No, very easy but need to understand differences compatible with IBM SAN Storages.

Implementation Team

Yes we used a local vendor S&T SRL.

ROI

I cannot say SRDF has a ROI because its role is to mitigate the risks such as system unavailability or system loss (DR).

Pricing, Setup Cost and Licensing

This info is confidential but the TCO is very good compared with other vendors.

Other Solutions Considered

In the past we used IBM Remote replication and mirroring.

Other Advice

My advice in nowadays is to look first inside current infrastructure and decide if SRDF is the only choice, for ex. we use mixed data replication: DB replication or application aware replication or filesystem/block level. We use CDP features where is available but we are oriented for app level replication and integrity.

Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.

Add a Comment

Guest
Why do you like it?

Sign Up with Email