Impact of WORM storage lock on storage growth

However much storage you need to meet retention, assume 3x with WORM.

Thanks,
Scott
 

​@Scott Moseman  thank you for quick answer. Does it means 3 times FET(frontend) or 3 times BET(Backend) ?

Got it..So it is Basline size which we see on the DDB window settings.Thanks for the quick answer.

Hello All, 

From my expiration about WORM copy backup will consume between 2-3 times space  backup which have the same retention without WORM copy. It it related to storing DDB which are sealed. 

Why 2-3 ratio for space is between 2-3 because there is a time where Commvault stores 3 DDBs and the last one is removing (time of creation new DDB and the last one after that should be removed). 

Regards, 

Michal

Yes, assume 3x backend storage.  Nothing changes on frontend.

Thanks,
Scott
 

​@Scott Moseman  I think has hit the nail on the head with the 3x BETB for enabling WORM lock...That’s what we’re seeing when organisations have enabled object lock on the likes of Pure FlashBlade, NetApp and HDS.

VAST is virtually is immune to this WORM lock penalty due to not caring that a DDB is sealed and new one started, because it doesn’t see those additional full backups as new data.  The VAST similarity reduction algorithms reduces them down to just 2-3% net additional storage consumed, as opposed to at least 2.5x usable required like the other storage vendors that can enable WORM.

This blog is a good read: https://www.vastdata.com/blog/understanding-commvault-dedupe-and-how-worm-affects-capacity-on-vast