Incremental Data Restore Between Dissimilar Storage Systems

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current data restoration methods between storage systems with dissimilar operating systems are inefficient, requiring full restores even for minor data deletions, leading to increased time, bandwidth usage, and storage requirements, which are costly and resource-intensive.

Innovation Solution

A method involving quiescing the file system, capturing a point-in-time image, and negotiating for common base data between storage systems with different operating systems to apply differential changes, enabling incremental restoration without the need for full data transfer.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a full restore process is performed to restore deleted data from destination storage system to source storage system, then data recovery is achieved, but restoration time increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedata recoveryVSAvoidrestoration time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the restore process by identifying and transferring only the specific differential data (deleted files) rather than performing a complete full restore. The system divides the data transfer into targeted segments based on metadata comparisons between source and destination storage systems, enabling selective restoration of only the necessary data portions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by performing an incremental restore that transfers only the minimal necessary data (differential data corresponding to deleted files) rather than the excessive action of transferring the entire dataset. This partial restore approach maintains data recovery reliability while significantly reducing restoration time and resource consumption.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

2Reliability

If a full restore process is performed, then data recovery is achieved, but bandwidth usage increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedata recoveryVSAvoidbandwidth usage

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of energy

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the data transfer by identifying specific differential data that needs restoration based on metadata comparisons. Only the segmented portions corresponding to deleted files are transferred over the network, rather than transferring the entire dataset, thereby reducing bandwidth consumption while achieving complete data recovery.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent extracts and transfers only the essential differential data (deleted files) from the destination storage system back to the source, separating the necessary restore data from the rest of the backup data. This extraction approach minimizes network bandwidth usage by transmitting only the minimal required data for recovery.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

3Reliability

If a full restore process is performed, then data recovery is achieved, but storage requirements at source storage system increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedata recoveryVSAvoidstorage requirements

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by restoring only the specific differential data (deleted files) rather than performing a complete full restore of all backup data. This partial restore approach achieves full data recovery reliability while minimizing the quantity of data that needs to be transferred and temporarily stored during the restore process.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Productivity

If incremental restore is performed between storage systems with dissimilar operating systems, then restoration efficiency improves, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverestoration efficiencyVSAvoidsystem complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a metadata comparison mechanism as an intermediary that bridges dissimilar storage operating systems. By comparing metadata (file identifiers, timestamps, sizes) between source and destination systems with different operating systems, the system can identify differential data without requiring direct compatibility between the storage systems, thereby enabling incremental restore while managing complexity through standardized metadata interfaces.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS8688645B2Incremental restore of data between storage systems having dissimilar storage operating systems associated therewith

Publication Date: 2014.04.01 NETAPP INC

AI summary

A method includes quiescing a file system of source storage system through a backup engine associated with the source storage system and a destination storage system and capturing, at the source storage system, a point-in-time image of the file system thereof through the backup engine. The method also includes sharing the captured point-in-time image of the file system of the source storage system with the destination storage system to enable the storage systems to have a common base data and negotiating between the storage systems for the common base data. Further, the method includes applying, to the common base data at the source storage system, a differential change corresponding to a difference between the common base data and a point-in-time image of the file system of the source storage system backed up at the destination storage system.