Backup Tapes Should Not Be Used for Archiving Data
Four strategies to move away from backup tapes
October 31, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
It amazes me how many organizations use backup tapes for archiving. Backup tapes and the software systems that create them were never designed for archiving, and any archiving strategy dependent upon backup tapes is fraught with cost and risk.
Backup systems and the backup tapes they create are designed for data protection – copying large amounts of data to protect against failure. In the event of inadvertent data deletion, disk failure, system crash or loss of an entire data center, backup tapes can restore data very quickly. The tape backup processes are mainly about speed, indiscriminately copying large amounts of data at a point in time onto high-capacity tapes. Backup systems do not have much understanding of the type or content of data that resides on their tapes. Backup tapes are quite good at…backup.
Record retention and legal hold, on the other hand, require archiving. Archiving – the selective retention of information for an indeterminate period of time – is a different function than backup. Archiving systems either target a particular media such as e-mail, files or database, or some combination of these, recognizing data not as a stream of bytes but rather as “objects.” Furthermore, archiving systems often maintain additional information about the data being retained, usually the data type, content, retention period, etc. Archiving systems have important capabilities beyond backup systems, including fast search and retrieval, deleting a single document or systematically suspending the deletion of a group of documents.
While it is easy to start archiving using backup tapes, this quickly creates problems. Every backup cycle creates another copy of the data, exponentially increasing the cost of searching and restoring documents. Furthermore, after a number of years, backup tapes become difficult to read, and as such are not acceptable for long-term retention.
Organizations should rethink their backup tape strategy:
- Many organizations are moving away from tape-based backup systems to disk-based systems that allow faster access to information and avoid redundant copies of data.
- Where tape-based backup is still used, segregate data from different systems into different tape pools. This simple step can quickly narrow the search for relevant data.
- Dedicated archiving systems for e-mail, files and structured data can be a big win.
- Don't forget to search for and clean out older, unneeded backup tapes on a regular basis. If the tapes are redundant, and the data isn't under any type of hold – get rid of it.
Legal and IT should review data retention strategies regularly. What you don't know can hurt you.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250