|
Home > Archive > Data Storage > May 2004 > Modern Email Archiving Systems And CAS
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Modern Email Archiving Systems And CAS
|
|
| acebgur 2004-05-30, 11:10 am |
| young_r@encompasserve.org (Rob Young) wrote in message news:<jHQj4jdirw2o@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
>
> The modern email system remark has to do with your earlier comment
> about "instead of keeping 200 copies you have one."
Rob, the point that I was trying to make is that there is a difference
between an email system and an email archiving system. Email systems
typically manage active email data, where an email archiving system
can manage several years or decades worth of email and attachments.
You are correct that email systems have single-instance storage built
in. However when the data is archived to optical/tape multiple copies
of single-instance data can occur when the same document is archived
on multiple occasions (e.g.; a resume, x-ray, or some other
attachment). The difference is that email archiving solutions that
migrate content to a CAS appliance will be able to take advantage of
single instance storage whether 10 copies of the same document were
stored in 1-day, or continuously over a 5 or 10 year period.
>
> Sure - now they are up to 101 applications.
>
Not necessarily. AT&T is offering an existing KVS CAS solution, and
the SEC is going with an existing EmailXtender CAS solution.
Thanks-
Ace
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CenteraTechGroup/
| |
| Peter da Silva 2004-05-30, 11:10 am |
| In article <43292cf8.0404161533.2758ae12@posting.google.com>,
acebgur <acebgur@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are correct that email systems have single-instance storage built
> in. However when the data is archived to optical/tape multiple copies
> of single-instance data can occur when the same document is archived
> on multiple occasions (e.g.; a resume, x-ray, or some other
> attachment).
If your archiving system retains multiple copies of an object then you
will of course have multiple copies of that object. If you don't want the
redundancy then don't save multiple copies of the same object. That way
you save storage at the cost of reliability.
But this doesn't require CAS, it just requires a backup or HSM system that
follows the policy you're interested in.
--
I've seen things you people can't imagine. Chimneysweeps on fire over the roofs
of London. I've watched kite-strings glitter in the sun at Hyde Park Gate. All
these things will be lost in time, like chalk-paintings in the rain. `-_-'
Time for your nap. | Peter da Silva | Har du kramat din varg, idag? 'U`
|
|
|
|
|