IT groups need to be able to consider adopting new backup software for many good reasons. New software might have features and benefits the company needs. The current vendor's maintenance costs may be too high. The company can get cost benefits from standardizing on a single-vendor shop, combining backup and other storage software and even storage systems from the same vendor. The old vendor has acquisition or financing problems or the new vendor is willing to extend pricing breaks to increase the return on investment.

However, migrating from one backup software to another is very difficult - so difficult that many enterprises have felt that they can't do it. In fact, IT people running backup operations typically feel it's not worth their time to consider backup migration because of the expense and disruption of migrating the thousands of tape volumes that must be retained and can't be thrown away along with the backup software.

Backup migration was hard when data retention periods were only 12 months. Now, when retention periods have been expanding to seven years for most data, it's harder than ever. Most IT organizations report that they now have at least some data under infinite retention - meaning that they literally intend never to retire it.

Does that mean that enterprises are locked into using their existing backup software for at least seven years, or forever?

What the storage industry has lacked is an easy, rapid, non-disruptive backup migration service for firms looking to switch backup vendors while managing their legacy tape archives. This article will address how enterprise customers are caught in this software maintenance trap and the problems they face in migrating their backup software given today's expanding data retention periods, ongoing software lease obligations, and heightened legal, compliance, and government regulations.

Old Fixes for Legacy Tape
Legacy tape archives didn't always pose a significant problem when companies wanted to switch backup vendors, but the situation has changed. Methods that worked well enough in the past have become impractical because of increased retention periods, software leasing models, and the sheer volume of data on tape archives.

1.  Past Strategy #1: Just let it expire. Past retention periods used to average three to six months and sometimes up to 12 months. If a firm decided to change backup vendors, they simply didn't worry about the tape archives - by the time the switch was made the legacy archives would be out of retention and could be retired along with the legacy backup software.

Present Problem: Longer retention periods. Retention periods have grown dramatically longer. In most cases retention is at least seven years - not months - at a minimum. The ever-present possibility of litigation, the changing rules governing how and when firms will be held accountable as well as the continued historical value have convinced many companies to put at least part of their data under "infinite retention." With retention periods this long (or this permanent) companies have felt under pressure to keep their original backup vendor to retain access to their legacy archives.

2.  Past Strategy #2: Keep the legacy application running on a single server. To maintain access to legacy archives, companies have also taken to keeping a small footprint of the legacy backup software running - perhaps just on a single server. This has been a way to provide tape management and data restore from the legacy archive.

Present Problem: Vendor lock-in. Instead of outright purchase, many companies lease their backup software and pay an annual maintenance fee for the privilege. If a company wants to end the lease and go to another vendor, it can. But it's not allowed to run even a single instance of its legacy application without paying full maintenance fees. Even when companies own the backup software and the right to run it without paying maintenance, it's growing less and less acceptable for enterprises to run the software without maintenance and support since they're relying on the software to meet legal, governmental, and other compliance regulations.

Annual maintenance fees for backup software are typically very expensive, averaging over 20% of the software's list price every year. So, companies are left with two poor choices: either assume a financial burden by paying a hefty ongoing fee for a service they may never use or run the unacceptable legal and compliance risk of not being able to access their archives.

3.  Past Strategy #3: Migrate the data. Data migration was never fun, but when data volumes weren't as large as they are today it could be cost-effective. Companies would migrate legacy archives into the new backup software format so they could continue to manage and recover them.

Present problem: Huge data volumes. Today, companies are faced with explosive data growth and tape is extremely awkward for large-scale restores. This makes massive data migrations hideously expensive, disruptive, and time-consuming. Don't let a prospective migration specialist tell you differently. For example, a large Californian university is undergoing a massive data migration from its old PACs system. Its new PACs vendor assured the school the migration from its legacy PACs archive would take three months. Fortunately, the university's project manager knew better and prepared for the long haul. Good thing too, since the migration has taken a year already with no end in sight. All of these factors have combined to constrain choices around backup software, and have left enterprises and IT organizations at the mercy of their existing backup vendor. If they don't like the product or the service that they're getting, there's been little compelling the backup vendor to help them out. If the vendor wants to raise its maintenance and support prices every year - charging more and more for the privilege of keeping the same backup environment running - then there's been little to stop it.