Testing the restore on a periodic basis is probably the task I like the least. But, if I had a minion, it's not one I would push down to him.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Steward <jstew...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > ~ 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
