Identifying trends in enterprise data protection systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enterprises routinely use data protection techniques to achieve business continuity in the event of failures. To ensure that backup and recovery goals are met in the face of the steep data growth rates of modern workloads, data protection systems need to constantly evolve. Recent studies show that these systems routinely miss their goals today. However, there is little work in the literature to understand why this is the case. In this paper, we present a study of 40,000 enterprise data protection systems deploying Symantec NetBackup, a commercial backup product. In total, we analyze over a million weekly reports which have been collected over a period of three years. We discover that the main reason behind inefficiencies in data protection systems is misconfigurations. Furthermore, our analysis shows that these systems grow in bursts, leaving clients unprotected at times, and are often configured using the default parameter values. As a result, we believe there is potential in developing automated, self-healing data protection systems that achieve higher efficiency standards. To aid researchers in the development of such systems, we use our dataset to identify trends characterizing data protection systems with regards to configuration, job scheduling, and data growth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".