*>>Because I don't feel that is sufficient.** *
I won't belabor this *much* further, but you really need to get past the *feelings* stage, and start working with authentic, objective, actionable data. I'm not sure what the tipping point is here, but in all my years on this list, I have never seen so much rejected/ignored/overlooked advice being given on a single topic. You need to have actual business requirements before you can generate a plan to address them. And that is irrelevant of cost. You can even invent the requirements if you want, in the absence of the business side doing it, but it's got to be way more substantive than "I feel like I don't have enough backups." I have much more data than this on my home network -- not even accounting for redundancy -- and I don't have a SAN. Yet. (That's an upcoming project.) And that's not a $30K problem. At best, it's a $5K problem. (At home, I plan for it to be a $1K problem, max). At %dayjob%, I just put together a 24TB solution that we'll be using for backing up some critical data with a retention of up to 2 years (52 weeks + 12 months). Total hardware and software costs is less than your suggested $30K, and I can tell you exactly what problem I am solving. Unless you're waiting for people to start speaking in tongues, I'd recommend that you heed the abundance of great advice and guidance you've already received -- before people start concluding that there is no benefit to giving it. *>>** Further, the second server, **while physically separate from the first, is still on the same "campus" as **the first, so anything that could take one out could, at least in theory, **take the second out.* Okay, so you get a SAN and replicate less than 1TB of data to a second campus. Do you have supporting business continuity processes to ensure that your employees can reach this other system in an emergency that dibiliates your primary campus? Feel to describe what you believe should happen in a disaster, and what type of disaster you're anticipating. If you have an unlimited budget, then go for whatever catches your fancy. Otherwise, solve your well-defined problem for as cost-effectively as possible, and move on to solve other real problems. I'm likely to need a SAN on my home network<http://home.asbzone.com/Diagrams/picture76107.aspx>before you do. Seriously. *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Aldrich <jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com > wrote: > Because I don't feel that is sufficient. I want to at least have some sort > of "archival backup" such as tape or something. Further, the second server, > while physically separate from the first, is still on the same "campus" as > the first, so anything that could take one out could, at least in theory, > take the second out. > > > > From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:02 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: SAN question > > Why aren't you comfortable with that? > > What specifically makes you uncomfortable? > > > ASB (My XeeSM Profile) > Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... > > > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:59 AM, John Aldrich > <jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> wrote: > Replication to a second server. That's it. I am not comfortable with that > and that's one thing pushing this project. > > > > 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
