{"id":1216,"date":"2009-10-28T12:05:45","date_gmt":"2009-10-28T02:05:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nsrd.wordpress.com\/?p=1216"},"modified":"2009-10-28T12:05:45","modified_gmt":"2009-10-28T02:05:45","slug":"dedupe-leading-edge-or-bleeding-edge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nsrd.info\/blog\/2009\/10\/28\/dedupe-leading-edge-or-bleeding-edge\/","title":{"rendered":"Dedupe: Leading Edge or Bleeding Edge?"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you think you can’t go a day without hearing something about dedupe, you’re probably right. Whether it’s every vendor arguing the case that their dedupe offerings are the best, or tech journalism reporting on it, or pundits explaining why you need it and why your infrastructure will just die<\/em> without it, it seems that it’s equally the topic of the year along with The Cloud.<\/p>\n

There is (from some at least) an argument that backup systems should be “out there” in terms of innovation; I question that in as much as I believe that the term bleeding edge<\/em> is there for a reason \u2013 it’s much sharper, it’s prone to accidents, and if you have an accident at the bleeding edge level, well, you’ll bleed.<\/p>\n

So, I always argue that there’s nothing wrong with leading edge<\/em> in backup systems (so long as it is warranted), but bleeding edge is far more riskier a proposition \u2013 not just in terms of potentially wasted investment, but due to the side effect<\/em> of that wasted investment. If a product is outright bleeding edge then having it involved in data protection is a particularly dangerous proposition. (Only when technology is a mix of bleeding edge and leading edge can you at least start to make the argument that it should be at least considered in the data protection sphere.)<\/p>\n

Personally I like the definitions of Bleeding Edge and Leading Edge in the article at Wikipedia on Technology Lifecycle<\/a>. To quote:<\/p>\n

Bleeding edge \u2013 any technology that shows high potential but hasn’t demonstrated its value or settled down into any kind of consensus. Early adopters may win big, or may be stuck with a white elephant.<\/p>\n

Leading edge \u2013 a technology that has proven itself in the marketplace but is still new enough that it may be difficult to find knowledgeable personnel to implement or support it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So the question is \u2013 is deduplication leading edge, or is it still bleeding edge?<\/p>\n

To understand the answer, we first have to consider that there’s actually 5 classified stages to the technology lifecycle. These are:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Bleeding edge.<\/li>\n
  2. Leading edge.<\/li>\n
  3. State of the art.<\/li>\n
  4. Dated.<\/li>\n
  5. Obsolete.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    What we have to consider is – what happens when a technology exhibits attributes of more than one classification or stage of technology? To me, working in the conservative field of data protection, I think there’s only one answer: it should be classified by the “least mature” or “most dangerous” stage that it exhibits attributes for.<\/p>\n

    Thus, deduplication is still bleeding edge<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    Why dedupe is still bleeding edge<\/h3>\n

    Clearly there are attributes of deduplication which are leading edge. It has, in field deployments, proven itself to be valuable in particular instances.<\/p>\n

    However, there are attributes of deduplication which are definitely still bleeding edge. In particular, the distinction for bleeding edge (to again quote from the Wikipedia article on Technology Lifecycle) is that it:<\/p>\n

    …shows high potential but hasn’t demonstrated its value or settled down into any kind of consensus<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    (My emphasis added.)<\/p>\n

    Clearly in at least some areas, deduplication has demonstrated its value \u2013 my rationale for it still being bleeding edge though is the second (and equally important) attribute: I’m not convinced that deduplication has sufficiently settled down into any kind of consensus.<\/p>\n

    Within deduplication, you can:<\/p>\n