<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>History must repeat itself</title>
		<description>Discuss History must repeat itself</description>
		<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:04:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.backupcentral.com/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/227/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Call me a fool, then</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-503</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I can't think of anything interesting that's happened technologically in my space (backup, that is) that didn't first start out with someone doing it in a closed way first. That's how standards get started. Someone does it, another person does it, then we realize we need a standard cause everybody does it. If I only bought open source stuff, or only bought things once standards had been decided, I can think of many things that I would have had to wait YEARS to get. In this case, we have this problem now. Is someone a fool for using a non-open way to solve the problem, just because it hasn't been standardized yet? I don't think so, as long as they realize they may have to change how they do it once a standard way comes along.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>W. Curtis Preston</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-503</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>dirk dierickx says:</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-502</link>
			<description><![CDATA[in this day and age i think you'd have to be a fool to buy into a technology which is not truely open (ie open source) or based on a recognised standard. it's scandalous when a products get released with a 'open' in their name but are anything but open at all.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>dirk dierickx</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:02:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-502</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>A VERY small step</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-498</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's only file-level dedupe. They do an MD5 hash of the first few blocks of the file. If it matches, the diff the two files. If those match, then they replace them with a link. Heck, I can do that with a shell script. LONG way from that to what we call dedupe.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>W. Curtis Preston</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:12:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-498</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>BackupPC ?</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-497</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Curtis, backupPC could be considered as a small step towards it ? The target based dedup (specially fixed block) is an open technology now.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jaspreet</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-497</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>De dupe</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-493</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Whether these guys sit on the table or not, de dupe (at least target based) will surely become a commodity very soon. I won't be surprised if the open source file-systems release a version with this built-in.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jaspreet</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:47:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-493</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Not really soon</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-496</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's nowhere close of becoming a commodity. Don't we have to have everybody even shipping it before that happens? And given how hard it was for the vendor community to ship dedupe, I'm not holding my breath for open source versions any time soon.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>W. Curtis Preston</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 03:46:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-496</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>More constructively</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-495</link>
			<description><![CDATA[OK, so rather than argue about history, let me get back to the core point, which you mention right above. What do we need to do, and how do we need to do it? I have posted some thoughts over on my blog about this: http://thebackupblog.typepad.com/thebackupblog/2009/02/deduplication-apis.html. So lets just say that with that part of your thesis I am in complete agreement.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Scott Waterhouse</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:40:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-495</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>I think the story\'s a little bit different</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-491</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No, Symantec didn't invent their products, and yes, a lot of products were acquired. And I don't think it's a game. I just think that when you're talking HISTORY (which I was), you should use the company names that applied at the time. In addition, this story's a little bit different than the examples you gave. It's not just that Legato didn't invent NDMP. Legato was one of the companies that was pushing AGAINST NDMP. Don't you think it's a little disingenuous for them to say they invented it when they were actually trying to kill it while the company they would eventually acquire WAS inventing it? Finally, the most I would say would be something like &#34;PDC, which would later become Intelliguard, and then get acquired by Legato, and then get acquired by EMC...&#34; But that data point was not germane to the story. What mattered was that competitors sat around a table and solved a common problem -- and that needs to happen again. Oh, and going back to your original comment. EMC coming out with it's OWN OST-like product isn't what I'm looking for. What's next, IBM's version, then CommVault's version, then, then, then? What about these poor IDT vendors that have to program and certify all these APIs? All of you have the same problem and you should all agree on a standard to fix it -- NOT each of you come out with your own solution.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>W. Curtis Preston</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 22 Feb 2009 04:07:52 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-491</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Scott Waterhouse says:</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-488</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Well, if you want to play that game... Symantec didn't "invent" their backup products (both Backup Exec and NetBackup are acquired). Nor did they invent their email (eVault was acquired). Likewise their HSM. All good products right? And all stuff Symantec would take credit for. So I think it is totally legitimate for Legato/EMC to claim co-inventoryship :-) for NDMP. If you talk to any of the old Legato folks in EMC today they are very passionate about this.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Scott Waterhouse</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 14:19:36 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-488</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>The spec is open</title>
			<link>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-487</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The spec is open so anyone can write to it on either side, but no one has done so to my knowledge. Maybe Bacula or AMANDA will do that, now that they have commercial versions.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>W. Curtis Preston</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.backupcentral.com/mr-backup-blog-mainmenu-47/13-mr-backup-blog/227-historyndmp.html#comment-487</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

