Isn't that the truth. Another piece of advice on disaster recovery and service contracts: There is a world of difference between a "4 hour call to response" contract and a "4 hour call to repair" contract. In the first instance you can be DAYS waiting on parts, in the second you can be drinking coffee while a tech is replacing the guts of your tape library within a few hours.
-Jeff Steward On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Andrew S. Baker <asbz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I understood that you meant that. But I have seen too many times that > the focus is on backup: making the windows, saving space, compressing data, > etc. > > And very little consideration is made to getting it all back into place, > and reintegrating the saved data with existing data. > > Even backup applications which talk about speed rarely mean "restore speed" > > *ASB * > > > > * * > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Raper, Jonathan - Eagle < > jra...@eaglemds.com> wrote: > >> ASB, thanks for clarifying…. >> >> >> >> Didn’t you hear what I *MEANT*?! J >> >> >> >> Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE >> >> Technology Coordinator >> Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA >> * >> *jra...@eaglemds.com* >> *www.eaglemds.com >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 11:01 AM >> >> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: SAN question >> >> >> >> Backup AND Recovery. >> >> >> Trust me, the second one won't work without the first, but the second is >> done poorly, you'll still have lots of grief and pain... >> >> >> >> *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> >> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* >> * * >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Raper, Jonathan - Eagle < >> jra...@eaglemds.com> wrote: >> >> +100,000,000 >> >> >> >> Who cares about your High Availability & redundancy if you don’t have a * >> *ROCK_SOLID_BACKUP_PLAN**. >> >> >> >> You need these books: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/701 >> >> >> >> Curtis **KNOWS** his stuff, and you (as well as all the rest of us, if we >> haven’t already) would benefit from his knowledge and experience on the >> subject, less we experience an RGE… [1] >> >> >> >> HTH… >> >> Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE >> >> Technology Coordinator >> Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA >> * >> *jra...@eaglemds.com* >> *www.eaglemds.com >> >> [1] Resume Generating Event >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 10:49 AM >> >> >> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >> *Subject:* Re: SAN question >> >> >> >> What is your current backup solution? >> >> >> >> -Jeff Steward >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, John Aldrich < >> jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> wrote: >> >> Well, my (admittedly limited) understanding is that at the low-end SANs >> have >> a lot of overlap with NAS and that they are almost interchangeable. I want >> some sort of separate machine to get the "file server" role off the DCs. >> Maybe that means a NAS, maybe it means a SAN, maybe it means a server >> with >> DAS running Windows Storage Server. At this point, I'm not really sure >> what >> the best money would be. Whatever we get, I want it to be expandable so >> that >> as we (hopefully) grow, we can add more storage as needed. >> >> I do like the idea of having tape to back up whatever we have. If we're >> going to have email in-house, we're likely to end up with at least a >> couple >> terabytes of data in the long run, so whatever archival backup we end up >> with is likely to need to be a library, instead of just an on-board tape >> drive. >> >> >> >> From: Kevin Lundy [mailto:klu...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:12 AM >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> Subject: Re: SAN question >> >> >> And absolutely none of that requires a SAN. Especially for your data set >> size. >> >> Why do you think you need a SAN? versus NAS? versus well architechted >> DAS >> with decent tape? >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:37 AM, John Aldrich < >> jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> >> >> wrote: >> I want to ensure that the data integrity remains intact, even if it takes >> a >> couple days to recover. This is business-critical data, although we could >> live without it for a couple or three days, it would be very difficult and >> time consuming to recreate much of the data on the servers. For this >> reason, >> I want redundant disks, network, controllers, etc. >> I believe I previously mentioned that my CEO told me we could live with >> taking up to 3 or 4 days to recover the data, but after that, it would be >> problematic. Personally, I'd like to get it down to under 48 hours to >> recover (not 4 business days, 48 actual hours.) That's why I want >> redundant >> controllers or if I can't get redundant controllers on the storage >> appliance >> itself, I want redundant storage appliances, such that the data itself is >> redundant. >> I would not like to have to go to the CEO and tell him "sorry, we lost the >> data because the system crashed and we had no backups." Theoretically, I >> could have one "appliance" and a tape library and be good, but I'd prefer >> to >> have it a *little* more robust than that. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] >> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:12 AM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: RE: SAN question >> >> > set up in some way that there's lots of redundancy >> >> Data redundancy? Disk redundancy? Controller redundancy? Site redundancy? >> Link redundancy?... >> >> If the answers to any of the above are "yes", to what degree? >> >> You can go nuts with this stuff... as has been mentioned before, what are >> your business requirements driving this architecture? >> >> -sc >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:28 PM >> > To: NT System Admin Issues >> > Subject: RE: SAN question >> > >> > Well, I *would* like to get the storage off the domain controllers and >> have it >> > set up in some way that there's lots of redundancy. I suppose I could >> buy >> a >> > Microsoft Storage Server with a couple terabytes of disk space and use >> that. >> > >> > >> > >> > From: Bill Humphries [mailto:nt...@hedgedigger.com] >> > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:14 PM >> > To: NT System Admin Issues >> > Subject: Re: SAN question >> > >> > Yeah, my vote is for DAS. You have a simple network that doesn't have to >> be >> > complex. A carpet company isn't some startup or tech company that will >> > change radically in a short period of time. The only way things >> radically >> > change there is if Shaw or Mohawk come knocking at the door...then you >> > have different problems. >> > >> > Bill >> > >> > >> > Jeff Steward wrote: >> > I'm bored, I'll bite. >> > >> > Like others here, I'm not convinced you even need a SAN or even NAS. >> You >> > can probably make use of DAS. >> > >> > To even begin to make an attempt to give you more guidance we need: >> > >> > How many users will be hitting the file server. >> > What type of file i/o are we talking about? Have you benchmarked your >> > current performance? How much storage do you currently have and how >> > much do you think you will need to meet anticipated growth over the next >> 24 >> > to 36 months. >> > >> > If you move to providing in-house Exchange, how many users will you be >> > hosting? How many are heavy duty users versus light duty? >> > >> > That's a start, answers to those questions will help us help you >> further. >> > >> > -Jeff Steward >> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:16 AM, John Aldrich >> > <jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> wrote: >> > Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to our >> on- >> > going search for a SAN manufacturer. I'd like your thoughts on the whole >> > question of adding more intelligence vs just adding more disks. i.e. the >> EQ vs >> > LeftHand models. >> > >> > I can see arguments to be made for both models. I'll tell you that, >> initially, the >> > SAN is going to be a glorified file server, however, we plan on hosting >> our >> > email data store on the SAN when we bring email in-house later on. I've >> > already verified with the email vendor that I hope to use that this is >> not >> a >> > problem, so that's a non-issue. Other than that, the only database we >> would >> > store on the SAN would possibly be the database from our Vipre install, >> > although initially that would stay on the local storage. >> > >> > So, I'd like to see some discussions of the benefits of just adding a >> tray >> of >> > "dumb drives" or adding a complete controller along with the drives (a >> la >> > LeftHand.) >> > >> > I just don't know enough about the benefits of each model to know what >> > would work best for us. I'm hoping that you guys who are more >> experienced >> > would give me the benefit of your knowledge. >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > John Aldrich >> > IT Manager, >> > Blueridge Carpet >> > 706-276-2001, Ext. 2233 >> >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
