AWS Database Migration Service vs. Komprise

As stated previously, AWS Database Migration Service excels when replicating very specific data elements between environments. AWS Database Migration Service handles replication tasks to load equipment assets or customer job sites from production to QA databases very well. Full load replication - e.g., we need an exact copy of the production database in another region - works well. But when we need to load the QA database with the latest production data - it does work as well. AWS Database Migration Service comes up short because we do not want to wipe the QA database completely and make an exact copy. We want to keep what's already in the QA database and add production data so that we can QA with that level of volume. And at least with our database design, we end up having to do a lot of manual data manipulation and de-duplication.

Incentivized

As any other archiving solution, it is very well suited for environments with a large footprint of unstructured data (CIFS / NFS shares for user data) with a large amount of unused/old files and a need to keep those unused files for long term. In our scenario, due to some legal and contractual constraints we need to keep these files for 15 years. Archiving is a good choice to move the unused files to a cheaper storage tier, both on-prem or cloud.

Incentivized

• It gives you a good overview on user data: files age, sizes, file types, owners, etc.
• It is very flexible on the archiving policies.
• The data scans are really fast without affecting storage's performance.
• It has a great alternative to STUB files, which they call 'bread crumbs' (symlinks to files).

Incentivized

• Its licensing plan, which takes into account the amount of data analyzed instead of data transferred.

Incentivized

We have used Veritas Enterprise Vault in the past, and besides its being a well-known player on the data archiving market, their tool is far more complex to implement, to manage and to keep working. Komprise is very robust and also very easy to implement, as most part of the job is done on Komprise side. The management console is delivered through a public URL as a SaaS platform. You only need to deploy a few VMs for scan/archiving/user access, which they call "Observer VMs." Komprise also doesn't uses Stub files, which is a poor implementation adopted by the competitor for file access. We had a lot of issues in the past with stub files. Komprise has implemented 'bread crumbs', which are CIFS symlinks to the files on the Observer. It is a very good implementation and it works really well.

Incentivized

• Set it and forget it for maintaining data consistency - moderate cost, zero to minimal maintenance
• High touch production data loads into QA - negative ROI engineering time investment far exceeded our predictions

Incentivized

• It allowed us to free up some space on our main storage during a time where we didn't have the budget to expand it.
• It allows us to move unused data to a cheaper storage tier (Azure Blobs).

Incentivized