RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu
What doesn't web scale? (what does that even mean?) From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 8:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Sure, but it doesn't web scale for . -- ME2 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.commailto:mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.commailto:michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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
Re: Spam appliances/services
I love IronPort, but they are pricey units. Barracuda is also a pretty good solution On 24 September 2010 00:56, Brad DeHart br...@khs-net.com wrote: +1 for IronPort. *From:* Kevin Lundy [mailto:klu...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 7:54 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: Spam appliances/services We had Barracuda, and loved it. When it came time to replace due to age, we looked around again. This time we went with Ironport. We like it even better. The big difference (to us) is the reputation filter simply drops a large part of spam and malware laden email at the network connection level. So that traffic doesn't consume any bandwidth. I believe the levels of spam getting through is marginally better. But not enough to actually be a negative against Barracuda. I have no concerns about recommending either. On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Tom Miller tmil...@hnncsb.org wrote: Folks, I'm in the market to replace my current spam filter. Google Message Security looks pretty good as a service, although it's pricing for us. I've heard good things about Barracuda SPAM and Virus filter, as well as M+ from Messaging Architects. Sorry Sunbelt, we don't run Exchange so your product is out. Anyone have any comments on those products and have any to add? I would for the most part like something to be configured and not to have to constantly tweak it. Also users need to be able to see what's blocked and unblock a message if they want. Thanks, Tom Tom Miller Engineer, Information Technology Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board 757-788-0528 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ~ 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 -- Kern Health Systems Confidentiality Statement: This email and any attachments are legally privileged and can contain business proprietary and/or confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. The authorized recipient of this information is prohibited from disclosing this information to any other party unless required to do so by law or regulation and is required to destroy the information after its stated need has been fulfilled. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately and arrange for the return or destruction of these documents. ~ 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 -- On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. ~ 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
RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu
Uh-oh. -sc From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu What doesn't web scale? (what does that even mean?) From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 8:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Sure, but it doesn't web scale for . -- ME2 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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
Re: Web Monitoring Appliance or service
We got a WebSense hardware appliance hoping it would be easier to configure than the WebSense software. It is, but not by a great deal - just the networking seems to be simplified a bit. It also doesn't support XenApp 6 yet, which we were a bit miffed about (the tech we spoke to assured us it would - looks like he meant XenApp 5). The reporting, filtering and customisation is all very good though, pretty much identical to the WebSense software. The UI is a bit annoying at times (especially when hunting for AD users and groups) but otherwise works very well. On 23 September 2010 19:00, Stefan Jafs stefan.j...@gmail.com wrote: I'm currently using an older iPrism appliance for my 250 users, comes in very handy, however it's coming up for renewal and it's quit price, $12k for 36 months (with an additional promo 18 months free). Before I do the renewal, I would like to know what you guys are using and to see if I should switch: Barracuda etc. -- Stefan Jafs ~ 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 -- On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. ~ 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
Re: Terminal Server Problem
I'm sure I saw some statistic from about a year or so ago that said 1 in 8 Windows servers in service were still running NT4. I have no idea whether it was accurate or how they arrived at that statistic though. On 24 September 2010 00:34, Free, Bob r...@pge.com wrote: It makes me wonder how many NT4 networks might still be out there... Truth be told, there are a lot more that folks might think…. *From:* Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:32 PM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: Terminal Server Problem I wondered that myself. I figured anyone still running a W2K DC must be hurting for resources and maybe they have some weird business need for it. It makes me wonder how many NT4 networks might still be out there... -Jeff Steward On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Webster carlwebs...@gmail.com wrote: Pardon me for asking but who in their right mind would allow YouTube on a Terminal Server? Webster *From:* Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] *Subject:* Re: Terminal Server Problem Adding the site to the trusted sites zone fixes the display issue on the banking sites. You're on your own for YouTube! ~ 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 -- On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. ~ 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
Re: Terminal Server Problem
Tried using compatibility view? On 23 September 2010 20:00, Shawn Everett sh...@tandac.com wrote: Hi Guys, I have a client with the following setup: - Windows 2000 Domain Controller - Windows 2003 Terminal Server They were running IE6 on the terminal server quite successfully. Their on site IT guy decided to upgrade them to IE8. There seems to be quite a few issues browsing the web now. All users including the Administrator user are getting blank pages visiting various banking sites. You Tube is sketchy and the overall browsing experience isn't working correctly. In a no doubt related problem, they can't print emails from Outlook 2003 anymore. I tried removing the IE Enhanced Security and setting the IEHarden registry key to 0 (From: support.microsoft.com/kb/933991) but with no luck. I even tried reinstalling IE8 but didn't expect that to work. I'm fresh out of ideas and would appreciate any thoughts the list could provide. Shawn ~ 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 -- On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. ~ 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
LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs
Does anyone know if it's possible to secure LDAP without using a CA install on the network? For various reasons (mainly down to the remote web servers of which we don't appear to have any control) we can't use a CA and install our own root certs, but need to find a way to secure LDAP authentication over the web without anything being required to be installed on the remote server doing the checking of user details. Any ideas? Olly [cid:personal2bb3.jpg] [cid:g2supportsmall_250x58border2ea6.png] Network Support Online Backups Server Management Tel: 0845 307 3443 Email: oliver.marsh...@g2support.com Web: http://www.g2support.comhttp://www.g2support.com/ Twitter: g2supporthttp://twitter.com/home?stat...@g2support Newsletter: http://www.g2support.com/newsletter Mail: 2 Roundhill Road, Brighton, Sussex, BN2 3RF Have you said something nice about us to a friend or colleague ? Let us say thanks. Find out more at www.g2support.com/referralhttp://www.g2support.com/referral G2 Support LLP is registered at Mill House, 103 Holmes Avenue, HOVE BN3 7LE. Our registered company number is OC316341. ~ 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 ntsysadmininline: personal2bb3.jpginline: g2supportsmall_250x58border2ea6.png
RE: LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs
SSL/TLS just relies on a commonly trusted party (i.e. trusted by the client, and by the server). That trusted party signs the certificate(s). Since both parties trust the trusted party, both parties have access to the necessary public key that can verify the signature on the presented certificate. So, bottom line, the answer to your question is yes Cheers Ken From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 5:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs Does anyone know if it's possible to secure LDAP without using a CA install on the network? For various reasons (mainly down to the remote web servers of which we don't appear to have any control) we can't use a CA and install our own root certs, but need to find a way to secure LDAP authentication over the web without anything being required to be installed on the remote server doing the checking of user details. Any ideas? Olly ~ 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
RE: LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs
Hmm - I don't know of any specific OID for LDAP - I'm assuming that it would just be the server authentication OID, which is included in any 3rd party CA offering. Possibly most people don't expose LDAPS over the internet? Cheers Ken From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 6:09 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs So the next question is, why do all the instructions include setting up a CA? Humpf. -- G2 Support Network Support : Online Backups : Server Management Web: www.g2support.com Twitter: g2supporthttp://twitter.com/home?stat...@g2support Newsletter: www.g2support.com/newsletterhttp://www.g2support.com/newsletter From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: 24 September 2010 10:52 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs SSL/TLS just relies on a commonly trusted party (i.e. trusted by the client, and by the server). That trusted party signs the certificate(s). Since both parties trust the trusted party, both parties have access to the necessary public key that can verify the signature on the presented certificate. So, bottom line, the answer to your question is yes Cheers Ken From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 5:27 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs Does anyone know if it's possible to secure LDAP without using a CA install on the network? For various reasons (mainly down to the remote web servers of which we don't appear to have any control) we can't use a CA and install our own root certs, but need to find a way to secure LDAP authentication over the web without anything being required to be installed on the remote server doing the checking of user details. Any ideas? Olly ~ 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.commailto:listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin [cid:image002.png@01CB5C14.4D6977D0] Network Support Online Backups Server Management Tel: 0845 307 3443 Email: oliver.marsh...@g2support.commailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com Web: http://www.g2support.comhttp://www.g2support.com/ Twitter: g2supporthttp://twitter.com/home?stat...@g2support Newsletter: http://www.g2support.com/newsletter Mail: 2 Roundhill Road, Brighton, Sussex, BN2 3RF Have you said something nice about us to a friend or colleague ? Let us say thanks. Find out more at www.g2support.com/referralhttp://www.g2support.com/referral G2 Support LLP is registered at Mill House, 103 Holmes Avenue, HOVE BN3 7LE. Our registered company number is OC316341. ~ 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.commailto: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 ntsysadmininline: image001.jpginline: image002.png
RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu
You catch much via heuristics on your current AV ..? Just asking ;o) -Original Message- From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] Sent: 23 September 2010 23:51 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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 WARNING: The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the same and any copies. CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE ~ 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
RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu
Wish I had more experience of it ... it doesn't seem to like my hardware. Installed it on Vista (32 bit) and Win7 (64 bit) on the same PC at different times and in both cases (pretty clean systems), it BSODs after about 30 seconds of GUI. Only way back is Safe Mode uninstall, or disable the service from starting up, which will allow boot up again normally, but BSOD again as soon as you manually restart it. a From: Sam Cayze [mailto:sam.ca...@rollouts.com] Sent: 23 September 2010 19:05 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Perhaps the sign of something bigger down the road? PS: MSE works like a charm on home PCs. Gone are the days of pointing friends to AVG, Avast, etc. Good riddance. http://bink.nu/news/free-microsoft-security-essentials-coming-for-small- businesses.aspx?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=feedutm_campaign=Feed% 3A+binkdotnu+%28Bink.nu%29 if wrapped: http://bit.ly/cTk4oI Sam ~ 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 WARNING: The information in this email and any attachments is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the named addressee, you must not use, copy or disclose this email (including any attachments) or the information in it save to the named addressee nor take any action in reliance on it. If you receive this email or any attachments in error, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the same and any copies. CLS Services Ltd × Registered in England No 4132704 × Registered Office: Exchange Tower × One Harbour Exchange Square × London E14 9GE ~ 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
Re: Spam appliances/services
Agree with everything Jim said. I run a Barracuda 300 with 125 users and my only compalint is the web interface is extremly slow due to the volume of email it processes. - Original Message - From: Jim Holmgren jholmg...@xlhealth.com To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:52:13 AM Subject: RE: Spam appliances/services Barracuda. No per-user fees, very configurable and awesome tech support. I had them at %previousjob% and am trying like heck to get them in at %currentjob%. They’ll even send you a 90 eval unit for free if you want to try it out. Jim Holmgren Manager of Server Engineering XLHealth Corporation The Warehouse at Camden Yards 351 West Camden Street, Suite 100 Baltimore, MD 21201 410.625.2200 (main) 443.524.8573 (direct) 443-506.2400 (cell) www.xlhealth.com From: Tom Miller [mailto:tmil...@hnncsb.org] Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:45 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Spam appliances/services Folks, I'm in the market to replace my current spam filter. Google Message Security looks pretty good as a service, although it's pricing for us. I've heard good things about Barracuda SPAM and Virus filter, as well as M+ from Messaging Architects. Sorry Sunbelt, we don't run Exchange so your product is out. Anyone have any comments on those products and have any to add? I would for the most part like something to be configured and not to have to constantly tweak it. Also users need to be able to see what's blocked and unblock a message if they want. Thanks, Tom Tom Miller Engineer, Information Technology Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board 757-788-0528 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ~ 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 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email, including attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and/or protected health information. Under the Federal Law (HIPAA), the intended recipient is obligated to keep this information secure and confidential. Any disclosure to third parties without authorization from the member of as permitted by law is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. NOTA DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este mensaje incluyendo cualquier anejo es para uso exclusivo del (los) destinatario (s) y puede incluir informaci�n confidencial y/o informaci�n de salud protegida. La Ley Federal (HIPAA) establece que el destinatario est� obligado a mantener la informaci�n confidencial y sequra. HIPAA proh�be y castiga cualquier divulgaci�n a terceras personas sin autorizaci�n del afiliado o permitido por ley. Si usted no es el destinatario, redirija esta mensaje al remitente, y destruye cualquier copia existente del mensaje original. ~ 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
(OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu)
Is it Friday again? Yes it is! So, without further ado, I give you Mongo DB is Web Scale. http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6995033/ Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu What doesn't web scale? (what does that even mean?) From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 8:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Sure, but it doesn't web scale for . -- ME2 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.commailto:mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.commailto:michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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.commailto: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
RE: SAN question
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! ~ ~
RE: SAN question
Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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:
RE: SAN question
Redundant disks, network or controllers don't help you recover. They just help you avoid a recovery scenario in the first place. Once you are in a recovery scenario, you need to rely on backups (either archived backups like tape, or another copy of the data - e.g. in another data center) As others have mentioned many, many times, you need a statement of actual requirements. What is the *minimum* your business needs to function. Then you can figure out the best way to deliver it. What you have, at the moment, is a wish list of things that you think you need, and a desire to buy a SAN that may, or may not, meet the actual needs of your business. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 8:37 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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.
Re: SAN question
Redundancy does nothing for data integrity. It copy corrupted data as well as good data without a blink. Redundancy provides fault tolerence to prevent downtime. If you're SLA gives you a few days to recover data, then all you need is backup. You need to adopt a methodology to test the backups on a periodic basis to ensure that the backup is working. I test our backup 4 times a year, sampling files, restoring databases to test servers and ensuring that reports as of that date reports our system. All you're describing can be solved by an adequate backup methodology. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:37 AM, John Aldrich jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.comwrote: 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
Re: SAN question
Don't you mean 2? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.comwrote: Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
RE: SAN question
Well why didn't you just say that in the first place Martin! We could have avoided the last year of conversations and traffic. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 7:41 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
Re: (OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu)
IIRC, this is NSFW. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: Is it Friday again? Yes it is! So, without further ado, I give you “Mongo DB is Web Scale”. http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6995033/ Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ *From:* Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 2:01 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu What doesn’t “web scale”? (what does that even mean?) *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, 24 September 2010 8:01 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Sure, but it doesn't web scale for . -- ME2 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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
Re: (OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu)
Don't miss the other episodes on that page either. *warning* Hysterical laughter may be induced. -Jeff Steward On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.comwrote: Is it Friday again? Yes it is! So, without further ado, I give you “Mongo DB is Web Scale”. http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6995033/ Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com *From:* Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 2:01 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu What doesn’t “web scale”? (what does that even mean?) *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, 24 September 2010 8:01 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Sure, but it doesn't web scale for . -- ME2 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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
RE: SAN question
I know! I'm genius! -Original Message- From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:47 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Well why didn't you just say that in the first place Martin! We could have avoided the last year of conversations and traffic. -Original Message- From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:mblackst...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 7:41 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
RE: SAN question
4. Buy a clustered controller config and a second one for a SnapMirror destination. There you go, the perfect config for everything you need! From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Don't you mean 2? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.com wrote: Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
Re: SAN question
My mistake, I bow to your superior intellect. Grovel even! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.comwrote: 4. Buy a clustered controller config and a second one for a SnapMirror destination. There you go, the perfect config for everything you need! *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 5:46 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: SAN question Don't you mean 2? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.com wrote: Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
Re: Terminal Server Problem
I tested that when I duplicated the problem for the OP and it did not fix the issue. The issue lies with the change in default security zone settings and adding the banking site to the Trusted Sites zone fixes the problem. -Jeff Steward On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:43 AM, James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com wrote: Tried using compatibility view? On 23 September 2010 20:00, Shawn Everett sh...@tandac.com wrote: Hi Guys, I have a client with the following setup: - Windows 2000 Domain Controller - Windows 2003 Terminal Server They were running IE6 on the terminal server quite successfully. Their on site IT guy decided to upgrade them to IE8. There seems to be quite a few issues browsing the web now. All users including the Administrator user are getting blank pages visiting various banking sites. You Tube is sketchy and the overall browsing experience isn't working correctly. In a no doubt related problem, they can't print emails from Outlook 2003 anymore. I tried removing the IE Enhanced Security and setting the IEHarden registry key to 0 (From: support.microsoft.com/kb/933991) but with no luck. I even tried reinstalling IE8 but didn't expect that to work. I'm fresh out of ideas and would appreciate any thoughts the list could provide. Shawn ~ 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 -- On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. ~ 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
RE: SAN question
The other option is to put all the vendors up on a wall and throw a dart. I'm sure there are a dozen who could do the same thing. :-) From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:52 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question My mistake, I bow to your superior intellect. Grovel even! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.com wrote: 4. Buy a clustered controller config and a second one for a SnapMirror destination. There you go, the perfect config for everything you need! From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Don't you mean 2? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.com wrote: Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
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.comwrote: 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! ~ ~
Re: SAN question
But call 'em an IBM N-Series and get in to a bidding war between Martin and me :) On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.comwrote: 4. Buy a clustered controller config and a second one for a SnapMirror destination. There you go, the perfect config for everything you need! *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 5:46 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: SAN question Don't you mean 2? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.com wrote: Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
RE: (OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu)
Doesn't that depend on your place of work? :-) -sc From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:47 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: (OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu) IIRC, this is NSFW. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com wrote: Is it Friday again? Yes it is! So, without further ado, I give you Mongo DB is Web Scale. http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6995033/ Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu What doesn't web scale? (what does that even mean?) From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 8:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Sure, but it doesn't web scale for . -- ME2 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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 ~ 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
RE: SAN question
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
RE: LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs
Yes you can use the third party certs - I do it all the time. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/321051 Thanks, Brian Desmond br...@briandesmond.com c - 312.731.3132 From: Oliver Marshall [mailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 4:27 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: LDAP SSL using 3rd party certs Does anyone know if it's possible to secure LDAP without using a CA install on the network? For various reasons (mainly down to the remote web servers of which we don't appear to have any control) we can't use a CA and install our own root certs, but need to find a way to secure LDAP authentication over the web without anything being required to be installed on the remote server doing the checking of user details. Any ideas? Olly [cid:image002.png@01CB5BC9.DB12D630] Network Support Online Backups Server Management Tel: 0845 307 3443 Email: oliver.marsh...@g2support.commailto:oliver.marsh...@g2support.com Web: http://www.g2support.comhttp://www.g2support.com/ Twitter: g2supporthttp://twitter.com/home?stat...@g2support Newsletter: http://www.g2support.com/newsletter Mail: 2 Roundhill Road, Brighton, Sussex, BN2 3RF Have you said something nice about us to a friend or colleague ? Let us say thanks. Find out more at www.g2support.com/referralhttp://www.g2support.com/referral G2 Support LLP is registered at Mill House, 103 Holmes Avenue, HOVE BN3 7LE. Our registered company number is OC316341. ~ 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.commailto: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 ntsysadmininline: image001.jpginline: image002.png
Re: Spam appliances/services
Indeed... *ASB * * * On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Roger Wright rhw...@gmail.com wrote: IMHO, email filtering is the ideal application for cloud computing. Most of the nasties originate out there anyway, so keep all that junk off your circuit entirely. +1 First-pass email filtering is one of the few things I like to put in the cloud. I don't even get many connection attempts to our real mail intake, and anything not from the service's IP range is easily dropped. -- Ben ~ 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
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.
RE: SAN question
John, How much data do you have in Gigs or Terabytes now in centralized file storage now, and how much data did you have 3, 6, 12, and 18 months ago? Also, how much data do you have on local workstations that you would be moving to centralized file storage? Finally, if I recall correctly, you only have a few handfuls of users, correct? Your disk performance requirement may not justify you pulling file storage off of your DCs. I would look at the server performance and confirm whether or not performance is suffering before spending significant dollars on a NAS, much less, a SAN. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong
I upgraded one of our users from Office 07 to Office 10. In Outlook 10, searches come up with different answers. Very light answers. Can this be changed? All my other Office upgrades have been fine and users have been generally pleased. Not this user... I have Exchange server 07, both this workstation and server are updated. This does not happen in other users. For example, in one folder on my workstation I have 2,000 e-mails and searches are just about immediate. He has over 6,000 in his Inbox and searches are just wrong, certainly not hitting every e-mail. Are there settings that can be changed to fix this? He has a laptop, with XP and only about 512 RAM. I am using 64-bit W7 with 8 gigs of RAM, so this may not be a fair comparison. ~ 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
RE: SAN question
Yes! From: Gary Slinger [mailto:gary.slin...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 7:18 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question But call 'em an IBM N-Series and get in to a bidding war between Martin and me :) On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.com wrote: 4. Buy a clustered controller config and a second one for a SnapMirror destination. There you go, the perfect config for everything you need! From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:46 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Don't you mean 2? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.com wrote: Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
RE: SAN question
+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.comBLOCKED::mailto:%20jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.comBLOCKED::http://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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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
Re: SAN question
Let's cover some definitions. A SAN is a storage area network, connotes networing equipment and servers (which sole duty is to provide storage). Let's call those storage servers- appliances. Those appliances may be high end boxes which provide multiple ways of accessing data: CIFS, NFS, iSCSI, Fiber Channel, etc. At the low end you have NAS (Network Attached Storage). Storage appliances can provide their storage to many clients but it is not a good idea to do that. You will still likely need a server serving the files to clients. In that case, considering your needs, I would not pickup a storage appliance, and would instead go with a server with DAS and serve that up. You do not want Window Storage Server, as that basically turns a server into a storage appliance, and you will still need another server to serve the files to clients. You go with a SAN if you have a heterogenuous environment which requires centralized storage to simplify management. One reason for that might be virtualization, there are others, but in this case are far beyond your scope and need. Were I you, I'd step back and look at your backup methodology. How far back do you want to keep? How much data do you have? How much data growth do you project within the next 2-3 years? Answer those questions based on your defined SLA, size the backup device accordingly, but a rough guess in your case would probably take me to some sort of NAS for backup. I'd have a dedicated file server and put your NAS at the other location you have access to and setup some sort of replication between the two. If your file server goes down for an extended period of time, you can probably use the NAS in a pinch. I think your email retention is a bit too ambitious, you likely don't have a great need to retain emails over a long period of time, and of such a volume as a few terabytes based on your previous emails about your environment. Keeping that much email is likely a huge waste of system resources. 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
NC State, IBM Researchers Create 'Stealth' Hypervisor Security Tool - DarkReading
The first article is a bit more verbose, but the title is more misleading than the second... - http://www.continuitycentral.com/news05371.html - http://www.darkreading.com/database_security/security/app-security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227500269 *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * ~ 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
RE: (OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu)
True. I should've pointed that out. My bad. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 8:47 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: (OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu) IIRC, this is NSFW. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.commailto:mich...@smithcons.com wrote: Is it Friday again? Yes it is! So, without further ado, I give you Mongo DB is Web Scale. http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6995033/ Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.comhttp://theessentialexchange.com/ From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.commailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu What doesn't web scale? (what does that even mean?) From: Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.commailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 8:01 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Sure, but it doesn't web scale for . -- ME2 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.commailto:mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.commailto:michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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
RE: SAN question
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
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
Re: SAN question
Why aren't you comfortable with that? What specifically makes you uncomfortable? *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker *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
RE: SAN question
We have about 200 Gigs of data on the servers now. As to how much we have on individual workstations, I can only guess. I don't believe we have enough storage available on the current servers to migrate stuff from the user's desktop machines to the servers, though. Also, as I mentioned in my reply to Jeff Steward, I don't have a very good backup program right now, as we only mirror the data between our two servers. I *definitely* need to get *something* going to keep us up and running in case something happens to one or both servers, which is why I'm thinking converting the DCs to virtual machines would be a good idea, but I need somewhere to put the storage that's currently ON those machines before I can P2V them. -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:49 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question John, How much data do you have in Gigs or Terabytes now in centralized file storage now, and how much data did you have 3, 6, 12, and 18 months ago? Also, how much data do you have on local workstations that you would be moving to centralized file storage? Finally, if I recall correctly, you only have a few handfuls of users, correct? Your disk performance requirement may not justify you pulling file storage off of your DCs. I would look at the server performance and confirm whether or not performance is suffering before spending significant dollars on a NAS, much less, a SAN. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
RE: SAN question
ASB, thanks for clarifying Didn't you hear what I MEANT?! :) Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.comBLOCKED::mailto:%20jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.comBLOCKED::http://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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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
RE: SAN question
Also do you use DFS? If you do, NAS units don't work. The volumes must be mapped to Windows servers as local drives (meaning ISCSI or DAS) HECK, running two servers with appropriate DAS running DFS/Replication would give you redundancy.. There are tons of ways to slice this without going to a SAN and spending that money unless your REQUIREMENTS dictate specific features that only SANS require. You can get two cheap Drobo or Synology boxes that support AD, SMB, CIFS, ISCSI (mini sans basically) 3 to 5 TB depending on raid and size of drives for 1/3rd the cost of a SAN. Synology and Drobo do replication between each other, you could use ISCSI and do DFS replication one to each server for redundancy, or have one online and replicate to the other for backups. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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?
RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong
Have you tried regenerating the Index? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:52 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I upgraded one of our users from Office 07 to Office 10. In Outlook 10, searches come up with different answers. Very light answers. Can this be changed? All my other Office upgrades have been fine and users have been generally pleased. Not this user... I have Exchange server 07, both this workstation and server are updated. This does not happen in other users. For example, in one folder on my workstation I have 2,000 e-mails and searches are just about immediate. He has over 6,000 in his Inbox and searches are just wrong, certainly not hitting every e-mail. Are there settings that can be changed to fix this? He has a laptop, with XP and only about 512 RAM. I am using 64-bit W7 with 8 gigs of RAM, so this may not be a fair comparison. ~ 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
Re: SAN question
What you need is a disaster recovery plan. Are both servers in the same physical location? If not and you are replicating data between the two, that's better fault tolerance than probably 80% of the companies your size and complexity. I manage the network for a medical device manufacturer of about your size (well - we *were* that big, but that's another story) and we don't replicate to multiple sites at this time. If our building burns down, we recover from offsite tape. Depending on how frequently your data changes, you may find it *much* more cost effective to evaluate cloud based backup and recovery solutions. There is *nothing* wrong or bad about having your DC also be a file server unless your performance metrics indicate an issue. You are continuing to make the classic mistake of developing a solution before you have defined the entire problem. If both of your servers are in the same physical location, adding a SAN/NAS/DAS doesn't do anything for you if your building burns down or lightning hits your server rack. -Jeff Steward On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:02 AM, John Aldrich jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com wrote: We have about 200 Gigs of data on the servers now. As to how much we have on individual workstations, I can only guess. I don't believe we have enough storage available on the current servers to migrate stuff from the user's desktop machines to the servers, though. Also, as I mentioned in my reply to Jeff Steward, I don't have a very good backup program right now, as we only mirror the data between our two servers. I *definitely* need to get *something* going to keep us up and running in case something happens to one or both servers, which is why I'm thinking converting the DCs to virtual machines would be a good idea, but I need somewhere to put the storage that's currently ON those machines before I can P2V them. -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:49 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question John, How much data do you have in Gigs or Terabytes now in centralized file storage now, and how much data did you have 3, 6, 12, and 18 months ago? Also, how much data do you have on local workstations that you would be moving to centralized file storage? Finally, if I recall correctly, you only have a few handfuls of users, correct? Your disk performance requirement may not justify you pulling file storage off of your DCs. I would look at the server performance and confirm whether or not performance is suffering before spending significant dollars on a NAS, much less, a SAN. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
Re: SAN question
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
Re: SAN question
I have more than 200GB's on my photo drive. Get a handful of Seagate FreeAgent terabyte USB disks and do multiple redundancy storage, replication and backup. Added bonus, you can take one of them home at night for off-site storage. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:02 AM, John Aldrich jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com wrote: We have about 200 Gigs of data on the servers now. As to how much we have on individual workstations, I can only guess. I don't believe we have enough storage available on the current servers to migrate stuff from the user's desktop machines to the servers, though. Also, as I mentioned in my reply to Jeff Steward, I don't have a very good backup program right now, as we only mirror the data between our two servers. I *definitely* need to get *something* going to keep us up and running in case something happens to one or both servers, which is why I'm thinking converting the DCs to virtual machines would be a good idea, but I need somewhere to put the storage that's currently ON those machines before I can P2V them. -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:49 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question John, How much data do you have in Gigs or Terabytes now in centralized file storage now, and how much data did you have 3, 6, 12, and 18 months ago? Also, how much data do you have on local workstations that you would be moving to centralized file storage? Finally, if I recall correctly, you only have a few handfuls of users, correct? Your disk performance requirement may not justify you pulling file storage off of your DCs. I would look at the server performance and confirm whether or not performance is suffering before spending significant dollars on a NAS, much less, a SAN. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
RE: SAN question
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
Re: SAN question
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
Re: SAN question
To quote Donald Rumsfeld, There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. I would say that in your known unknowns are too great and you need to get to know them a bit better. I'm going to be completely honest. I get the distinct feeling that you're completely overwhelmed by your job. You're using us (the list) in an effort to solve all your problems. Trouble is, you don't even know your problems. You need to get a handle on your environment. Assess your storage needs, plan the storage environment and implement. Pick a problem tackle it and then move on. You're attempting to solve all your problems at one time with one approach. Not. Gonna. Happen. You haven't done enough homework on your storage problem, I suggest going back to the beginning find out exactly how much storage you need to centralize, develop a plan for backing it up. Get that data onto a server, observe the growth rate for a couple of years and the come back. Building an environment is an iterative process. I'll Zakharov from quote Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri Technological advance is an inherently iterative process. One does not simply take sand from the beach and produce a Dataprobe. We use crude tools to fashion better tools, and then our better tools to fashion more precise tools, and so on. Each minor refinement is a step in the process, and all of the steps must be taken. In the same manner, you cannot build an environment overnight. I say you, as in specifically you, because you have too many unknowns and far too many gaps in your knowledge. You need to curb your ambition and dreams, go back to things you know. My impression is that you want a SAN because they're sexy to work with, that you'll be able to say to your next prospective employer that I know how to use X technology. Trouble is, you won't know, you won't even use a large precentage of the feature set. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:02 AM, John Aldrich jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com wrote: We have about 200 Gigs of data on the servers now. As to how much we have on individual workstations, I can only guess. I don't believe we have enough storage available on the current servers to migrate stuff from the user's desktop machines to the servers, though. Also, as I mentioned in my reply to Jeff Steward, I don't have a very good backup program right now, as we only mirror the data between our two servers. I *definitely* need to get *something* going to keep us up and running in case something happens to one or both servers, which is why I'm thinking converting the DCs to virtual machines would be a good idea, but I need somewhere to put the storage that's currently ON those machines before I can P2V them. -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:49 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question John, How much data do you have in Gigs or Terabytes now in centralized file storage now, and how much data did you have 3, 6, 12, and 18 months ago? Also, how much data do you have on local workstations that you would be moving to centralized file storage? Finally, if I recall correctly, you only have a few handfuls of users, correct? Your disk performance requirement may not justify you pulling file storage off of your DCs. I would look at the server performance and confirm whether or not performance is suffering before spending significant dollars on a NAS, much less, a SAN. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
RE: SAN question
We are running DFSR, but only for redundancy. All clients map to a physical machine and drive, as we had some issues with DFSR not staying synchronous, even over a GigE connection. This was mainly due to running out of room on the disk for replication (due to multiple copies of large files being stored --- since corrected.) -Original Message- From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:06 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Also do you use DFS? If you do, NAS units don't work. The volumes must be mapped to Windows servers as local drives (meaning ISCSI or DAS) HECK, running two servers with appropriate DAS running DFS/Replication would give you redundancy.. There are tons of ways to slice this without going to a SAN and spending that money unless your REQUIREMENTS dictate specific features that only SANS require. You can get two cheap Drobo or Synology boxes that support AD, SMB, CIFS, ISCSI (mini sans basically) 3 to 5 TB depending on raid and size of drives for 1/3rd the cost of a SAN. Synology and Drobo do replication between each other, you could use ISCSI and do DFS replication one to each server for redundancy, or have one online and replicate to the other for backups. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
RE: SAN question
As I mentioned just a moment ago in another reply, they are on the same campus, in different buildings. I think the secondary server is probably at more risk of lightning strike than the primary as it's up on a hill. Fortunately, the county just built a water tower above the building it's in, so *that* is more likely to take lightning strikes now. :-) OTOH, if that water tank ever goes, it'll take both buildings with it and about 90% of our operation, and no tape means no D/R. :-( At the very least I'd want to add a tape library, I think, plus my plans to migrate some of the user's files off their desktop machines and bring email in-house mean I *very probably* need more storage than I currently have, so I'd need to add *some* sort of additional storage. From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:14 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question What you need is a disaster recovery plan. Are both servers in the same physical location? If not and you are replicating data between the two, that's better fault tolerance than probably 80% of the companies your size and complexity. I manage the network for a medical device manufacturer of about your size (well - we *were* that big, but that's another story) and we don't replicate to multiple sites at this time. If our building burns down, we recover from offsite tape. Depending on how frequently your data changes, you may find it *much* more cost effective to evaluate cloud based backup and recovery solutions. There is *nothing* wrong or bad about having your DC also be a file server unless your performance metrics indicate an issue. You are continuing to make the classic mistake of developing a solution before you have defined the entire problem. If both of your servers are in the same physical location, adding a SAN/NAS/DAS doesn't do anything for you if your building burns down or lightning hits your server rack. -Jeff Steward On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:02 AM, John Aldrich jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com wrote: We have about 200 Gigs of data on the servers now. As to how much we have on individual workstations, I can only guess. I don't believe we have enough storage available on the current servers to migrate stuff from the user's desktop machines to the servers, though. Also, as I mentioned in my reply to Jeff Steward, I don't have a very good backup program right now, as we only mirror the data between our two servers. I *definitely* need to get *something* going to keep us up and running in case something happens to one or both servers, which is why I'm thinking converting the DCs to virtual machines would be a good idea, but I need somewhere to put the storage that's currently ON those machines before I can P2V them. -Original Message- From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:49 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question John, How much data do you have in Gigs or Terabytes now in centralized file storage now, and how much data did you have 3, 6, 12, and 18 months ago? Also, how much data do you have on local workstations that you would be moving to centralized file storage? Finally, if I recall correctly, you only have a few handfuls of users, correct? Your disk performance requirement may not justify you pulling file storage off of your DCs. I would look at the server performance and confirm whether or not performance is suffering before spending significant dollars on a NAS, much less, a SAN. Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE Technology Coordinator Eagle Physicians Associates, PA jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.com -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
Re: SAN question
Assuming a scenario where both servers get wiped out, what does management expect to happen? Note, this isn't a question I expect you to answer, but is a question you need to have management answer, and plan accordingly. 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
Re: SAN question
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.comwrote: 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
RE: SAN question
Jonathan, thanks for your input. I am beginning to rethink some of my plans. That being said, I would like to correct some misunderstandings you seem to have of my plan. I don't plan on keeping a *lot* of email. I have just under a hundred mailboxes at this time (probably about 90, give or take.) I don't plan on storing a huge amount of old emails on there, but I know my users and I know human nature. If I don't force them to delete messages, they likely won't. :-) This kind of goes with another thread from a few days ago about email retention policies. We dont currently have an email retention policy, so I don't know who far back I'd need to keep emails, but I'd guess probably at least a year. Kerio recommends about 100-200 Gigs of disk space for the amount of users I have. I also want to migrate files off user's desktop machines onto the network, so that in the event the PC crashes, I can just rebuild the PC and then restore their work-related files via a folder redirect. I figure between what we have now, in disk space used and what all the other plans I have require, that we will be using around a terabyte of disk space. If I want to take snapshots, etc, it would be prudent to double that, I would think. Also, I want to leave room for growth. Perhaps 5 Terabytes is overkill to start with, but I think 3 Tb sounds reasonable. I'm willing to be corrected, though by others with more experience. :-) From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:57 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Let's cover some definitions. A SAN is a storage area network, connotes networing equipment and servers (which sole duty is to provide storage). Let's call those storage servers- appliances. Those appliances may be high end boxes which provide multiple ways of accessing data: CIFS, NFS, iSCSI, Fiber Channel, etc. At the low end you have NAS (Network Attached Storage). Storage appliances can provide their storage to many clients but it is not a good idea to do that. You will still likely need a server serving the files to clients. In that case, considering your needs, I would not pickup a storage appliance, and would instead go with a server with DAS and serve that up. You do not want Window Storage Server, as that basically turns a server into a storage appliance, and you will still need another server to serve the files to clients. You go with a SAN if you have a heterogenuous environment which requires centralized storage to simplify management. One reason for that might be virtualization, there are others, but in this case are far beyond your scope and need. Were I you, I'd step back and look at your backup methodology. How far back do you want to keep? How much data do you have? How much data growth do you project within the next 2-3 years? Answer those questions based on your defined SLA, size the backup device accordingly, but a rough guess in your case would probably take me to some sort of NAS for backup. I'd have a dedicated file server and put your NAS at the other location you have access to and setup some sort of replication between the two. If your file server goes down for an extended period of time, you can probably use the NAS in a pinch. I think your email retention is a bit too ambitious, you likely don't have a great need to retain emails over a long period of time, and of such a volume as a few terabytes based on your previous emails about your environment. Keeping that much email is likely a huge waste of system resources. 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
Re: SAN question
I disagree on that, I want my guys to be able to do the restore because invaiably John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership for Strong Families From: Jonathan Link jonathan.l...@gmail.com To: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com Sent: Fri Sep 24 11:33:00 2010 Subject: Re: SAN question 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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto:jra...@eaglemds.com wrote: ASB, thanks for clarifying…. Didn’t you hear what I MEANT?! ☺ 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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto:jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.comhttp://www.eaglemds.com/ [1] Resume Generating Event From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto: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
RE: SAN question
I think this thread (like all the previous ones) has gone on long enough. We are not asking you questions because we want answers. Frankly, I think most of the people here no longer care - you've used enough time as it is. *You* need to work out what your *requirements* are. Not what you're 'unhappy' about. Or what you 'think' you need. You need to find out what the business needs, in order of priority. For example you state that you need to be back up and running within 3 days. OK - a SAN is not going to help with that. Only a *recovery* system can help with that. That means some way of replacing your tape drive (if you are worried that you'll lose that), and a way of getting your tapes back, and a way of restoring. All within 3 days. That's called your RTO: Recovery Time Objective. The next thing to consider is your RPO - Recovery Point Objective. How much data can you afford to lose? One day? Two days? A week? Again *you* need to figure this out. And again, a SAN will not help you with that. The only thing a SAN is going to do is help you avoid a recovery scenario. But you haven't stated *any* requirement whatsoever about this. Is the business happy to pay $30k to ensure that they only have a disaster once every 10 years? Or would they prefer to suffer a disaster once every 5 years, but by spending $30k on a tape library, they can be up and running again in 3 days? This is what *you* need to find out. Then you can work out what you need to buy. It doesn't matter how big or small your environment is you need requirements. My environment is going to be ~4000 Wintel servers in Production alone, I suspect yours will be smaller unless the carpet business significantly picks up. Our requirements from the customer and internally run to many hundreds of pages - probably over a thousand pages now. Even my home network (where I have about 10 VM servers) has requirements. Otherwise, you are just going to be either (a) bothering people with questions forever or (b) p*ssing money up a wall on stuff you don't need. If you want help documenting what you need, then please ask for help on that. Please stop asking for advice on SAN vendors until you've worked out what your requirements are, and you think you've found a good fit and what other people's experience with that particular piece of kit. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:26 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question We are running DFSR, but only for redundancy. All clients map to a physical machine and drive, as we had some issues with DFSR not staying synchronous, even over a GigE connection. This was mainly due to running out of room on the disk for replication (due to multiple copies of large files being stored --- since corrected.) -Original Message- From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:06 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Also do you use DFS? If you do, NAS units don't work. The volumes must be mapped to Windows servers as local drives (meaning ISCSI or DAS) HECK, running two servers with appropriate DAS running DFS/Replication would give you redundancy.. There are tons of ways to slice this without going to a SAN and spending that money unless your REQUIREMENTS dictate specific features that only SANS require. You can get two cheap Drobo or Synology boxes that support AD, SMB, CIFS, ISCSI (mini sans basically) 3 to 5 TB depending on raid and size of drives for 1/3rd the cost of a SAN. Synology and Drobo do replication between each other, you could use ISCSI and do DFS replication one to each server for redundancy, or have one online and replicate to the other for backups. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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:
RE: SAN question
My response would suggest that we have a tape or set of tapes somewhere that we can restore to new hardware, even if it means building a new domain and joining each machine to the domain. A previous employer had their SBS server crash. I had help rebuilding it and had to rejoin each machine (about a dozen in that case) to the domain. It was a lot of work, but I got it done. At that point, they did not have a backup, so they lost pretty much everything and had to start from scratch. I'm trying to prevent that. I think maybe I'll start by looking at getting a tape library so we can at least back up what we have, and possibly do a bare-metal restore. From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Assuming a scenario where both servers get wiped out, what does management expect to happen? Note, this isn't a question I expect you to answer, but is a question you need to have management answer, and plan accordingly. ~ 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
RE: SAN question
Here is my take, swallow what you will ,spit out what you wont.. I have no idea what you currently have. Based on your size and the zillions of posts around this. Identify your space need for the next 3 years. Since you ARE running DFS, you have to do with LOCAL drives. That means your server thinks they are built in. NAS units and CIFS shares wont work . DFS requires Windows 2003/2008 Server to function. DFSR requires 2003 R2 or 2008 servers. Buy a NAS that supports ISCSI (Drobo, Synology) or go with a good DAS, MD3000 or such... Make sure it can handle your storage needs. Any of your servers if they are within a few years can run Vmware or HyperV and interface with a DAS and partition space if you want to go that route or install the ISCSI initiator on your VM's/Physical and map it to the LUN on the unit. Purchase a Datto Backup unit. Capable of taking 15 minute snapshots of your server and realtime dropping the whole server, SQL, Exchange, Files into Vmware waiting to hit the start button in the event of a total failure. All of that data replicates to their cloud for recovery in the event of a total failure or disaster locally. Allows incremental recovery of data locally as well and recovery to point in time for the whole server or mount SQL or Exchange without having to go through full recovery procedures. Its slick, I use it, clients love it, and it just works. I bet the whole solution would cost you 15k and your monthly would easily spread out over 3 years to your 30k. Your finance people will love not dropping 30k up front. You get reliability, data recovery and business continuity. I am the first one to admit, that I can get overwhelmed with the dozens of options, and you are probably in the position that this decision/purchase has to be right because if its not your but is on the line. So you are hesitant to make the decision. We have ALL been there, and we all probably get there more often than we used to. I may suggest you contact a proven IT organization in the area and spend 5 to 8 hours of their consulting time and help them develop these business goals, IT goals and then give you some options on meeting them. Then come back to the list with a clear idea and let us throw out suggestions. I have no more time to read this ongoing thread until you have done the work. Greg From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:17 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question 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.commailto:jra...@eaglemds.com wrote: ASB, thanks for clarifying Didn't you hear what I MEANT?! :) 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.commailto: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.commailto: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.commailto:jra...@eaglemds.com www.eaglemds.comhttp://www.eaglemds.com [1] Resume Generating Event From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.commailto: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.commailto: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
Re: SAN question
Ok, so with the information provided so far, the only person here who really thinks John needs a SAN is John, right? I mean if I had his job, i'd stop looking at a fancy-dancy SAN and get a server with DAS and a tape library or other backup solution that gets backups off-site so that I'm actually protecting data in case of a disaster. I'm so very tired of all the talking in circles of this SAN thing. Bill ~ 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
RE: SAN question
Jeff, that's a good point. I appreciate you bringing it up. From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:24 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question 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?! ☺ 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) 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
RE: SAN question
+1 Hire a consulting firm that can spend a day or two with you to work out what your requirements are. They can probably recommend some options (which you can then come back to the list for some sanity check) Cheers Ken From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:42 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Here is my take, swallow what you will ,spit out what you wont.. I have no idea what you currently have. Based on your size and the zillions of posts around this. Identify your space need for the next 3 years. Since you ARE running DFS, you have to do with LOCAL drives. That means your server thinks they are built in. NAS units and CIFS shares wont work . DFS requires Windows 2003/2008 Server to function. DFSR requires 2003 R2 or 2008 servers. Buy a NAS that supports ISCSI (Drobo, Synology) or go with a good DAS, MD3000 or such... Make sure it can handle your storage needs. Any of your servers if they are within a few years can run Vmware or HyperV and interface with a DAS and partition space if you want to go that route or install the ISCSI initiator on your VM's/Physical and map it to the LUN on the unit. Purchase a Datto Backup unit. Capable of taking 15 minute snapshots of your server and realtime dropping the whole server, SQL, Exchange, Files into Vmware waiting to hit the start button in the event of a total failure. All of that data replicates to their cloud for recovery in the event of a total failure or disaster locally. Allows incremental recovery of data locally as well and recovery to point in time for the whole server or mount SQL or Exchange without having to go through full recovery procedures. Its slick, I use it, clients love it, and it just works. I bet the whole solution would cost you 15k and your monthly would easily spread out over 3 years to your 30k. Your finance people will love not dropping 30k up front. You get reliability, data recovery and business continuity. I am the first one to admit, that I can get overwhelmed with the dozens of options, and you are probably in the position that this decision/purchase has to be right because if its not your but is on the line. So you are hesitant to make the decision. We have ALL been there, and we all probably get there more often than we used to. I may suggest you contact a proven IT organization in the area and spend 5 to 8 hours of their consulting time and help them develop these business goals, IT goals and then give you some options on meeting them. Then come back to the list with a clear idea and let us throw out suggestions. I have no more time to read this ongoing thread until you have done the work. Greg From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:17 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question 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 ~ 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
RE: SAN question
John you are still missing the point. Buy a tape library, duplicate your Storage, use external drives. Who cares? You must define your requirements. How much data do you have? How fast do you need it recovered? How long will it take to backup based on the technology? Will it meet your backup window? What do you do for Business Continuity? Define the objectives...BEFORE YOUR PURCHASE. A tape library costs thousands of dollars, are there other ways, does it fit within your objectives, will the tape library scale to 5 TB as you mention before? These are the goals we have been trying to get you to define before just executing on technology.. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:41 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question My response would suggest that we have a tape or set of tapes somewhere that we can restore to new hardware, even if it means building a new domain and joining each machine to the domain. A previous employer had their SBS server crash. I had help rebuilding it and had to rejoin each machine (about a dozen in that case) to the domain. It was a lot of work, but I got it done. At that point, they did not have a backup, so they lost pretty much everything and had to start from scratch. I'm trying to prevent that. I think maybe I'll start by looking at getting a tape library so we can at least back up what we have, and possibly do a bare-metal restore. From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:29 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Assuming a scenario where both servers get wiped out, what does management expect to happen? Note, this isn't a question I expect you to answer, but is a question you need to have management answer, and plan accordingly. ~ 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
RE: SAN question
I would love to do that. How much would you expect to pay a consulting firm for something like this? I looked at a couple groups in the region and was shocked that they wanted almost as much just to consult as I was looking to spend on a SAN project That being said, it somewhat makes sense, if they charge a couple hundred an hour for their services. From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:45 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question +1 Hire a consulting firm that can spend a day or two with you to work out what your requirements are. They can probably recommend some options (which you can then come back to the list for some sanity check) Cheers Ken From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:42 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Here is my take, swallow what you will ,spit out what you wont.. I have no idea what you currently have. Based on your size and the zillions of posts around this. Identify your space need for the next 3 years. Since you ARE running DFS, you have to do with LOCAL drives. That means your server thinks they are built in. NAS units and CIFS shares wont work . DFS requires Windows 2003/2008 Server to function. DFSR requires 2003 R2 or 2008 servers. Buy a NAS that supports ISCSI (Drobo, Synology) or go with a good DAS, MD3000 or such Make sure it can handle your storage needs. Any of your servers if they are within a few years can run Vmware or HyperV and interface with a DAS and partition space if you want to go that route or install the ISCSI initiator on your VMs/Physical and map it to the LUN on the unit. Purchase a Datto Backup unit. Capable of taking 15 minute snapshots of your server and realtime dropping the whole server, SQL, Exchange, Files into Vmware waiting to hit the start button in the event of a total failure. All of that data replicates to their cloud for recovery in the event of a total failure or disaster locally. Allows incremental recovery of data locally as well and recovery to point in time for the whole server or mount SQL or Exchange without having to go through full recovery procedures. Its slick, I use it, clients love it, and it just works. I bet the whole solution would cost you 15k and your monthly would easily spread out over 3 years to your 30k. Your finance people will love not dropping 30k up front. You get reliability, data recovery and business continuity. I am the first one to admit, that I can get overwhelmed with the dozens of options, and you are probably in the position that this decision/purchase has to be right because if its not your but is on the line. So you are hesitant to make the decision. We have ALL been there, and we all probably get there more often than we used to. I may suggest you contact a proven IT organization in the area and spend 5 to 8 hours of their consulting time and help them develop these business goals, IT goals and then give you some options on meeting them. Then come back to the list with a clear idea and let us throw out suggestions. I have no more time to read this ongoing thread until you have done the work. Greg From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:17 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question 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 ~ 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
Re: SAN question
No, they can do the restore. They can test the VM's because I'll want them accessible to sample the restored data. I'll test it by sampling the data. I hate it. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote: I disagree on that, I want my guys to be able to do the restore because invaiably John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership for Strong Families -- *From*: Jonathan Link jonathan.l...@gmail.com *To*: NT System Admin Issues ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com *Sent*: Fri Sep 24 11:33:00 2010 *Subject*: Re: SAN question 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.comwrote: 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,
RE: SAN question
Agreed. A HP MSA60 array (or equivalent from Dell or IBM) can take 12 2TB drives. RAID5 with 2 hot-spares will still provide 18TB of space. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: Bill Humphries [mailto:nt...@hedgedigger.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:43 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Ok, so with the information provided so far, the only person here who really thinks John needs a SAN is John, right? I mean if I had his job, i'd stop looking at a fancy-dancy SAN and get a server with DAS and a tape library or other backup solution that gets backups off-site so that I'm actually protecting data in case of a disaster. I'm so very tired of all the talking in circles of this SAN thing. ~ 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
Re: SAN question
+*∞* On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ken Schaefer k...@adopenstatic.com wrote: I think this thread (like all the previous ones) has gone on long enough. We are not asking you questions because we want answers. Frankly, I think most of the people here no longer care - you've used enough time as it is. *You* need to work out what your *requirements* are. Not what you're 'unhappy' about. Or what you 'think' you need. You need to find out what the business needs, in order of priority. For example you state that you need to be back up and running within 3 days. OK - a SAN is not going to help with that. Only a *recovery* system can help with that. That means some way of replacing your tape drive (if you are worried that you'll lose that), and a way of getting your tapes back, and a way of restoring. All within 3 days. That's called your RTO: Recovery Time Objective. The next thing to consider is your RPO - Recovery Point Objective. How much data can you afford to lose? One day? Two days? A week? Again *you* need to figure this out. And again, a SAN will not help you with that. The only thing a SAN is going to do is help you avoid a recovery scenario. But you haven't stated *any* requirement whatsoever about this. Is the business happy to pay $30k to ensure that they only have a disaster once every 10 years? Or would they prefer to suffer a disaster once every 5 years, but by spending $30k on a tape library, they can be up and running again in 3 days? This is what *you* need to find out. Then you can work out what you need to buy. It doesn't matter how big or small your environment is you need requirements. My environment is going to be ~4000 Wintel servers in Production alone, I suspect yours will be smaller unless the carpet business significantly picks up. Our requirements from the customer and internally run to many hundreds of pages - probably over a thousand pages now. Even my home network (where I have about 10 VM servers) has requirements. Otherwise, you are just going to be either (a) bothering people with questions forever or (b) p*ssing money up a wall on stuff you don't need. If you want help documenting what you need, then please ask for help on that. Please stop asking for advice on SAN vendors until you've worked out what your requirements are, and you think you've found a good fit and what other people's experience with that particular piece of kit. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:26 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question We are running DFSR, but only for redundancy. All clients map to a physical machine and drive, as we had some issues with DFSR not staying synchronous, even over a GigE connection. This was mainly due to running out of room on the disk for replication (due to multiple copies of large files being stored --- since corrected.) -Original Message- From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:06 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Also do you use DFS? If you do, NAS units don't work. The volumes must be mapped to Windows servers as local drives (meaning ISCSI or DAS) HECK, running two servers with appropriate DAS running DFS/Replication would give you redundancy.. There are tons of ways to slice this without going to a SAN and spending that money unless your REQUIREMENTS dictate specific features that only SANS require. You can get two cheap Drobo or Synology boxes that support AD, SMB, CIFS, ISCSI (mini sans basically) 3 to 5 TB depending on raid and size of drives for 1/3rd the cost of a SAN. Synology and Drobo do replication between each other, you could use ISCSI and do DFS replication one to each server for redundancy, or have one online and replicate to the other for backups. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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:
RE: SAN question
Thanks for your honest opinion, Ken. I have come to the conclusion that you and others are right. I'm going to paraphrase... I know what I know, but I don't know what I don't know and there are too many unknowns right now. I think I'm going to shelve this project for now and work on a backup/recovery solution while working on getting management to cough up the money for a consultant to help me figure out what I need. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:39 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question I think this thread (like all the previous ones) has gone on long enough. We are not asking you questions because we want answers. Frankly, I think most of the people here no longer care - you've used enough time as it is. *You* need to work out what your *requirements* are. Not what you're 'unhappy' about. Or what you 'think' you need. You need to find out what the business needs, in order of priority. For example you state that you need to be back up and running within 3 days. OK - a SAN is not going to help with that. Only a *recovery* system can help with that. That means some way of replacing your tape drive (if you are worried that you'll lose that), and a way of getting your tapes back, and a way of restoring. All within 3 days. That's called your RTO: Recovery Time Objective. The next thing to consider is your RPO - Recovery Point Objective. How much data can you afford to lose? One day? Two days? A week? Again *you* need to figure this out. And again, a SAN will not help you with that. The only thing a SAN is going to do is help you avoid a recovery scenario. But you haven't stated *any* requirement whatsoever about this. Is the business happy to pay $30k to ensure that they only have a disaster once every 10 years? Or would they prefer to suffer a disaster once every 5 years, but by spending $30k on a tape library, they can be up and running again in 3 days? This is what *you* need to find out. Then you can work out what you need to buy. It doesn't matter how big or small your environment is you need requirements. My environment is going to be ~4000 Wintel servers in Production alone, I suspect yours will be smaller unless the carpet business significantly picks up. Our requirements from the customer and internally run to many hundreds of pages - probably over a thousand pages now. Even my home network (where I have about 10 VM servers) has requirements. Otherwise, you are just going to be either (a) bothering people with questions forever or (b) p*ssing money up a wall on stuff you don't need. If you want help documenting what you need, then please ask for help on that. Please stop asking for advice on SAN vendors until you've worked out what your requirements are, and you think you've found a good fit and what other people's experience with that particular piece of kit. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:26 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question We are running DFSR, but only for redundancy. All clients map to a physical machine and drive, as we had some issues with DFSR not staying synchronous, even over a GigE connection. This was mainly due to running out of room on the disk for replication (due to multiple copies of large files being stored --- since corrected.) -Original Message- From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:06 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Also do you use DFS? If you do, NAS units don't work. The volumes must be mapped to Windows servers as local drives (meaning ISCSI or DAS) HECK, running two servers with appropriate DAS running DFS/Replication would give you redundancy.. There are tons of ways to slice this without going to a SAN and spending that money unless your REQUIREMENTS dictate specific features that only SANS require. You can get two cheap Drobo or Synology boxes that support AD, SMB, CIFS, ISCSI (mini sans basically) 3 to 5 TB depending on raid and size of drives for 1/3rd the cost of a SAN. Synology and Drobo do replication between each other, you could use ISCSI and do DFS replication one to each server for redundancy, or have one online and replicate to the other for backups. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:22 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
D/R and SAN
I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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
Re: SAN question
$175-$250/hr for the folks that know what they're doing. You might get down to $125/hr if you bargain hard and/or take lower-end folks. Don't be surprised if you see higher rates as well. Alternately (and back to requirements!) you define a set of requirements/deliverables you need, and ask for a fixed-fee engagement to deliver that set of required deliverables. Shocked that they want as much as you think the project will cost in and of itself? That's because you may easily end up spending a lot more time on the project than you think you well, and even redoing the project once or twice, because you don't have the req spec and a plan. Measure twice, cut once - do it right the first time. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:47 AM, John Aldrich jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com wrote: I would love to do that. How much would you expect to pay a consulting firm for something like this? I looked at a couple groups in the region and was shocked that they wanted almost as much just to consult as I was looking to spend on a SAN project That being said, it somewhat makes sense, if they charge a couple hundred an hour for their services. From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:45 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question +1 Hire a consulting firm that can spend a day or two with you to work out what your requirements are. They can probably recommend some options (which you can then come back to the list for some sanity check) Cheers Ken From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:42 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Here is my take, swallow what you will ,spit out what you wont.. I have no idea what you currently have. Based on your size and the zillions of posts around this. Identify your space need for the next 3 years. Since you ARE running DFS, you have to do with LOCAL drives. That means your server thinks they are built in. NAS units and CIFS shares wont work . DFS requires Windows 2003/2008 Server to function. DFSR requires 2003 R2 or 2008 servers. Buy a NAS that supports ISCSI (Drobo, Synology) or go with a good DAS, MD3000 or such… Make sure it can handle your storage needs. Any of your servers if they are within a few years can run Vmware or HyperV and interface with a DAS and partition space if you want to go that route or install the ISCSI initiator on your VM’s/Physical and map it to the LUN on the unit. Purchase a Datto Backup unit. Capable of taking 15 minute snapshots of your server and realtime dropping the whole server, SQL, Exchange, Files into Vmware waiting to hit the start button in the event of a total failure. All of that data replicates to their cloud for recovery in the event of a total failure or disaster locally. Allows incremental recovery of data locally as well and recovery to point in time for the whole server or mount SQL or Exchange without having to go through full recovery procedures. Its slick, I use it, clients love it, and it just works. I bet the whole solution would cost you 15k and your monthly would easily spread out over 3 years to your 30k. Your finance people will love not dropping 30k up front. You get reliability, data recovery and business continuity. I am the first one to admit, that I can get overwhelmed with the dozens of options, and you are probably in the position that this decision/purchase has to be right because if its not your but is on the line. So you are hesitant to make the decision. We have ALL been there, and we all probably get there more often than we used to. I may suggest you contact a proven IT organization in the area and spend 5 to 8 hours of their consulting time and help them develop these “business goals, IT goals” and then give you some options on meeting them. Then come back to the list with a clear idea and let us throw out suggestions. I have no more time to read this ongoing thread until you have done the work. Greg From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:17 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question 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 ~ 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
RE: SAN question
You got it, Bill. That's what I've decided to do. -Original Message- From: Bill Humphries [mailto:nt...@hedgedigger.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:43 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Ok, so with the information provided so far, the only person here who really thinks John needs a SAN is John, right? I mean if I had his job, i'd stop looking at a fancy-dancy SAN and get a server with DAS and a tape library or other backup solution that gets backups off-site so that I'm actually protecting data in case of a disaster. I'm so very tired of all the talking in circles of this SAN thing. Bill ~ 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
RE: SAN question
In the interim: a) talk to management about various scenarios. Have some facts to back up the scenarios in case they question the likelihood of it happening (e.g. how many laptop/workstations have you lost - either the whole thing, or just the disk drive). Ask them how they feel if the CEO's laptop died. Or if no one could logon. Or the sales people couldn't VPN back in again for 24 hours / 48 hours / 72 hours. Or whatever. Get a feel for their priorities. And how quickly something becomes a priority the longer the service isn't available (this will help you draft some SLAs/OLAs - basically agreements on how much a service should be up). b) as a follow up to (a) - if they voice any real worry about a particular scenario, inform them that they are *not* covered for such scenario at the moment (or partially covered, or fully covered). That may focus their minds on the need to do something about it sooner rather than later. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:50 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Thanks for your honest opinion, Ken. I have come to the conclusion that you and others are right. I'm going to paraphrase... I know what I know, but I don't know what I don't know and there are too many unknowns right now. I think I'm going to shelve this project for now and work on a backup/recovery solution while working on getting management to cough up the money for a consultant to help me figure out what I need. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:39 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question I think this thread (like all the previous ones) has gone on long enough. We are not asking you questions because we want answers. Frankly, I think most of the people here no longer care - you've used enough time as it is. *You* need to work out what your *requirements* are. Not what you're 'unhappy' about. Or what you 'think' you need. You need to find out what the business needs, in order of priority. For example you state that you need to be back up and running within 3 days. OK - a SAN is not going to help with that. Only a *recovery* system can help with that. That means some way of replacing your tape drive (if you are worried that you'll lose that), and a way of getting your tapes back, and a way of restoring. All within 3 days. That's called your RTO: Recovery Time Objective. The next thing to consider is your RPO - Recovery Point Objective. How much data can you afford to lose? One day? Two days? A week? Again *you* need to figure this out. And again, a SAN will not help you with that. The only thing a SAN is going to do is help you avoid a recovery scenario. But you haven't stated *any* requirement whatsoever about this. Is the business happy to pay $30k to ensure that they only have a disaster once every 10 years? Or would they prefer to suffer a disaster once every 5 years, but by spending $30k on a tape library, they can be up and running again in 3 days? This is what *you* need to find out. Then you can work out what you need to buy. It doesn't matter how big or small your environment is you need requirements. My environment is going to be ~4000 Wintel servers in Production alone, I suspect yours will be smaller unless the carpet business significantly picks up. Our requirements from the customer and internally run to many hundreds of pages - probably over a thousand pages now. Even my home network (where I have about 10 VM servers) has requirements. Otherwise, you are just going to be either (a) bothering people with questions forever or (b) p*ssing money up a wall on stuff you don't need. If you want help documenting what you need, then please ask for help on that. Please stop asking for advice on SAN vendors until you've worked out what your requirements are, and you think you've found a good fit and what other people's experience with that particular piece of kit. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:26 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question We are running DFSR, but only for redundancy. All clients map to a physical machine and drive, as we had some issues with DFSR not staying synchronous, even over a GigE connection. This was mainly due to running out of room on the disk for replication (due to multiple copies of large files being stored --- since corrected.) -Original Message- From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:06 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Also do you use DFS? If you do, NAS units don't work. The volumes must be mapped to Windows servers as local drives (meaning ISCSI or DAS) HECK, running two servers with
Re: SAN question
John, You can contact me at my work email at b...@chasinggremlins.com. We are in metro-Atlanta Bill. John Aldrich wrote: I would love to do that. How much would you expect to pay a consulting firm for something like this? I looked at a couple groups in the region and was shocked that they wanted almost as much just to consult as I was looking to spend on a SAN project That being said, it somewhat makes sense, if they charge a couple hundred an hour for their services. From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:45 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question +1 Hire a consulting firm that can spend a day or two with you to work out what your requirements are. They can probably recommend some options (which you can then come back to the list for some sanity check) Cheers Ken From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:42 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Here is my take, swallow what you will ,spit out what you wont.. I have no idea what you currently have. Based on your size and the zillions of posts around this. Identify your space need for the next 3 years. Since you ARE running DFS, you have to do with LOCAL drives. That means your server thinks they are built in. NAS units and CIFS shares wont work . DFS requires Windows 2003/2008 Server to function. DFSR requires 2003 R2 or 2008 servers. Buy a NAS that supports ISCSI (Drobo, Synology) or go with a good DAS, MD3000 or such… Make sure it can handle your storage needs. Any of your servers if they are within a few years can run Vmware or HyperV and interface with a DAS and partition space if you want to go that route or install the ISCSI initiator on your VM’s/Physical and map it to the LUN on the unit. Purchase a Datto Backup unit. Capable of taking 15 minute snapshots of your server and realtime dropping the whole server, SQL, Exchange, Files into Vmware waiting to hit the start button in the event of a total failure. All of that data replicates to their cloud for recovery in the event of a total failure or disaster locally. Allows incremental recovery of data locally as well and recovery to point in time for the whole server or mount SQL or Exchange without having to go through full recovery procedures. Its slick, I use it, clients love it, and it just works. I bet the whole solution would cost you 15k and your monthly would easily spread out over 3 years to your 30k. Your finance people will love not dropping 30k up front. You get reliability, data recovery and business continuity. I am the first one to admit, that I can get overwhelmed with the dozens of options, and you are probably in the position that this decision/purchase has to be right because if its not your but is on the line. So you are hesitant to make the decision. We have ALL been there, and we all probably get there more often than we used to. I may suggest you contact a proven IT organization in the area and spend 5 to 8 hours of their consulting time and help them develop these “business goals, IT goals” and then give you some options on meeting them. Then come back to the list with a clear idea and let us throw out suggestions. I have no more time to read this ongoing thread until you have done the work. Greg From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:17 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question 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 ~ 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
RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong
I gotta share - 512 MB with inbox counts that high is probably insufficient, assuming he's doing anything else whatsoever. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:01 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I hadn't, but I am now. With 8,000 in his InBox, and over 60,000 elsewhere, this may take all weekend... -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:13 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong Have you tried regenerating the Index? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:52 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I upgraded one of our users from Office 07 to Office 10. In Outlook 10, searches come up with different answers. Very light answers. Can this be changed? All my other Office upgrades have been fine and users have been generally pleased. Not this user... I have Exchange server 07, both this workstation and server are updated. This does not happen in other users. For example, in one folder on my workstation I have 2,000 e-mails and searches are just about immediate. He has over 6,000 in his Inbox and searches are just wrong, certainly not hitting every e-mail. Are there settings that can be changed to fix this? He has a laptop, with XP and only about 512 RAM. I am using 64-bit W7 with 8 gigs of RAM, so this may not be a fair comparison. ~ 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 ~ 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
RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong
Gotcha. I will add more RAM to his laptop as soon as I can... And many thanks, Michael... -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:00 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I gotta share - 512 MB with inbox counts that high is probably insufficient, assuming he's doing anything else whatsoever. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:01 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I hadn't, but I am now. With 8,000 in his InBox, and over 60,000 elsewhere, this may take all weekend... -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:13 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong Have you tried regenerating the Index? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:52 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I upgraded one of our users from Office 07 to Office 10. In Outlook 10, searches come up with different answers. Very light answers. Can this be changed? All my other Office upgrades have been fine and users have been generally pleased. Not this user... I have Exchange server 07, both this workstation and server are updated. This does not happen in other users. For example, in one folder on my workstation I have 2,000 e-mails and searches are just about immediate. He has over 6,000 in his Inbox and searches are just wrong, certainly not hitting every e-mail. Are there settings that can be changed to fix this? He has a laptop, with XP and only about 512 RAM. I am using 64-bit W7 with 8 gigs of RAM, so this may not be a fair comparison. ~ 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 ~ 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
RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong
I agree, 512MB of RAM is pretty light, especially to do the kind of real-time background indexing that Windows Desktop Search wants to do, as you're now discovering by rebuilding the index. That said, rebuilding the index is likely to resolve the problem, at least in the short-term. Ben M. Schorr Chief Executive Officer Roland Schorr Tower www.rolandschorr.com / www.officeforlawyers.com / www.onenote-tips.com Member: American Bar Association - 01473703 Author: The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Outlook 2007: http://tinyurl.com/ol4law-amazon Author: The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Word 2007: http://tinyurl.com/abaword2007 -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 09:00 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I gotta share - 512 MB with inbox counts that high is probably insufficient, assuming he's doing anything else whatsoever. Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:01 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I hadn't, but I am now. With 8,000 in his InBox, and over 60,000 elsewhere, this may take all weekend... -Original Message- From: Michael B. Smith [mailto:mich...@smithcons.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:13 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong Have you tried regenerating the Index? Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com -Original Message- From: Holstrom, Don [mailto:dholst...@nbm.org] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 10:52 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Outlook 2010 searches are different/wrong I upgraded one of our users from Office 07 to Office 10. In Outlook 10, searches come up with different answers. Very light answers. Can this be changed? All my other Office upgrades have been fine and users have been generally pleased. Not this user... I have Exchange server 07, both this workstation and server are updated. This does not happen in other users. For example, in one folder on my workstation I have 2,000 e-mails and searches are just about immediate. He has over 6,000 in his Inbox and searches are just wrong, certainly not hitting every e-mail. Are there settings that can be changed to fix this? He has a laptop, with XP and only about 512 RAM. I am using 64-bit W7 with 8 gigs of RAM, so this may not be a fair comparison. ~ 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 ~ 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
Re: SAN question
Local computer reseller should be sufficient for your needs. I'd like to ask. Can you answer a question asked of you or take advice proposed without asking another question? Chances are they wanted a lot because they thought they were responding to a high end request. Were I a sales vulture around you I'd be salivating at my commission... On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:47 AM, John Aldrich jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com wrote: I would love to do that. How much would you expect to pay a consulting firm for something like this? I looked at a couple groups in the region and was shocked that they wanted almost as much just to consult as I was looking to spend on a SAN project That being said, it somewhat makes sense, if they charge a couple hundred an hour for their services. From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:45 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question +1 Hire a consulting firm that can spend a day or two with you to work out what your requirements are. They can probably recommend some options (which you can then come back to the list for some sanity check) Cheers Ken From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:42 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Here is my take, swallow what you will ,spit out what you wont.. I have no idea what you currently have. Based on your size and the zillions of posts around this. Identify your space need for the next 3 years. Since you ARE running DFS, you have to do with LOCAL drives. That means your server thinks they are built in. NAS units and CIFS shares wont work . DFS requires Windows 2003/2008 Server to function. DFSR requires 2003 R2 or 2008 servers. Buy a NAS that supports ISCSI (Drobo, Synology) or go with a good DAS, MD3000 or such… Make sure it can handle your storage needs. Any of your servers if they are within a few years can run Vmware or HyperV and interface with a DAS and partition space if you want to go that route or install the ISCSI initiator on your VM’s/Physical and map it to the LUN on the unit. Purchase a Datto Backup unit. Capable of taking 15 minute snapshots of your server and realtime dropping the whole server, SQL, Exchange, Files into Vmware waiting to hit the start button in the event of a total failure. All of that data replicates to their cloud for recovery in the event of a total failure or disaster locally. Allows incremental recovery of data locally as well and recovery to point in time for the whole server or mount SQL or Exchange without having to go through full recovery procedures. Its slick, I use it, clients love it, and it just works. I bet the whole solution would cost you 15k and your monthly would easily spread out over 3 years to your 30k. Your finance people will love not dropping 30k up front. You get reliability, data recovery and business continuity. I am the first one to admit, that I can get overwhelmed with the dozens of options, and you are probably in the position that this decision/purchase has to be right because if its not your but is on the line. So you are hesitant to make the decision. We have ALL been there, and we all probably get there more often than we used to. I may suggest you contact a proven IT organization in the area and spend 5 to 8 hours of their consulting time and help them develop these “business goals, IT goals” and then give you some options on meeting them. Then come back to the list with a clear idea and let us throw out suggestions. I have no more time to read this ongoing thread until you have done the work. Greg From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:17 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question 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 ~ 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! ~ ~
RE: SAN question
Thank you. I will work on getting that information from Management. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:56 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question In the interim: a) talk to management about various scenarios. Have some facts to back up the scenarios in case they question the likelihood of it happening (e.g. how many laptop/workstations have you lost - either the whole thing, or just the disk drive). Ask them how they feel if the CEO's laptop died. Or if no one could logon. Or the sales people couldn't VPN back in again for 24 hours / 48 hours / 72 hours. Or whatever. Get a feel for their priorities. And how quickly something becomes a priority the longer the service isn't available (this will help you draft some SLAs/OLAs - basically agreements on how much a service should be up). b) as a follow up to (a) - if they voice any real worry about a particular scenario, inform them that they are *not* covered for such scenario at the moment (or partially covered, or fully covered). That may focus their minds on the need to do something about it sooner rather than later. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:50 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Thanks for your honest opinion, Ken. I have come to the conclusion that you and others are right. I'm going to paraphrase... I know what I know, but I don't know what I don't know and there are too many unknowns right now. I think I'm going to shelve this project for now and work on a backup/recovery solution while working on getting management to cough up the money for a consultant to help me figure out what I need. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:39 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question I think this thread (like all the previous ones) has gone on long enough. We are not asking you questions because we want answers. Frankly, I think most of the people here no longer care - you've used enough time as it is. *You* need to work out what your *requirements* are. Not what you're 'unhappy' about. Or what you 'think' you need. You need to find out what the business needs, in order of priority. For example you state that you need to be back up and running within 3 days. OK - a SAN is not going to help with that. Only a *recovery* system can help with that. That means some way of replacing your tape drive (if you are worried that you'll lose that), and a way of getting your tapes back, and a way of restoring. All within 3 days. That's called your RTO: Recovery Time Objective. The next thing to consider is your RPO - Recovery Point Objective. How much data can you afford to lose? One day? Two days? A week? Again *you* need to figure this out. And again, a SAN will not help you with that. The only thing a SAN is going to do is help you avoid a recovery scenario. But you haven't stated *any* requirement whatsoever about this. Is the business happy to pay $30k to ensure that they only have a disaster once every 10 years? Or would they prefer to suffer a disaster once every 5 years, but by spending $30k on a tape library, they can be up and running again in 3 days? This is what *you* need to find out. Then you can work out what you need to buy. It doesn't matter how big or small your environment is you need requirements. My environment is going to be ~4000 Wintel servers in Production alone, I suspect yours will be smaller unless the carpet business significantly picks up. Our requirements from the customer and internally run to many hundreds of pages - probably over a thousand pages now. Even my home network (where I have about 10 VM servers) has requirements. Otherwise, you are just going to be either (a) bothering people with questions forever or (b) p*ssing money up a wall on stuff you don't need. If you want help documenting what you need, then please ask for help on that. Please stop asking for advice on SAN vendors until you've worked out what your requirements are, and you think you've found a good fit and what other people's experience with that particular piece of kit. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:26 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question We are running DFSR, but only for redundancy. All clients map to a physical machine and drive, as we had some issues with DFSR not staying synchronous, even over a GigE connection. This was mainly due to running out of room on the disk for replication (due to multiple copies of large files being stored --- since corrected.) -Original Message- From: greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net [mailto:greg.swe...@actsconsulting.net] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:06 AM To: NT System Admin
RE: SAN question
John, this is what we do right now: Site A 2 x ESX hosts into a SAN. Site B 1 x Windows 2003 physical host a long way away with gig Ethernet between both, it has a bunch of disks attached and an LTO autoloader. 1 x ESX host. At sites A and B the ESX hosts run esXpress (from PHD virtual). What happens is that every night the VM's at Site A are snapshotted and backed up to a shared folder on the far off 2003 box. The file server (this is a VM with around 8tb on it) does a nightly copy job to the remote server using robocopy. The backups of the VM's go to tape, as do the various agent based backups (i.e. the file server). So if someone deletes a file from the main file server in Site A I can do several things: Use Previous Versions to pull it back from the server in Site A Get it back from the previous night from the copy in Site B Get it back from tape If I lose a VM (or the whole of Site A) I can restore the VM's I need to the ESX box in Site B from the backups that are on the Windows server in Site B. It's not perfect and we're looking at getting the replication happening at SAN level, but you get the idea and you can do all of this with two servers you don't need any kind of NAS or SAN, DAS would be fine. Paul -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: 24 September 2010 16:52 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question You got it, Bill. That's what I've decided to do. -Original Message- From: Bill Humphries [mailto:nt...@hedgedigger.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:43 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: SAN question Ok, so with the information provided so far, the only person here who really thinks John needs a SAN is John, right? I mean if I had his job, i'd stop looking at a fancy-dancy SAN and get a server with DAS and a tape library or other backup solution that gets backups off-site so that I'm actually protecting data in case of a disaster. I'm so very tired of all the talking in circles of this SAN thing. Bill ~ 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 -- MIRA Ltd Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England Registered in England and Wales No. 402570 VAT Registration GB 114 5409 96 The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited. ~ 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
RE: SAN question
Additionally, feel free to make your recommendations (as the resident IT manager) about what things they should be prioritising and your proposed solution. But make sure you know what you're talking about first (in terms of priorities, and the solution). At this stage, I don't think you've got a good enough handle on what management's thoughts are, or what they are worried about. They may be focussing on the wrong things entirely and need educating on things they haven't even thought about. But once you and they are in-sync, you can work to either propose a solution, or get someone in to work on it with you. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Saturday, 25 September 2010 12:04 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Thank you. I will work on getting that information from Management. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:56 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question In the interim: a) talk to management about various scenarios. Have some facts to back up the scenarios in case they question the likelihood of it happening (e.g. how many laptop/workstations have you lost - either the whole thing, or just the disk drive). Ask them how they feel if the CEO's laptop died. Or if no one could logon. Or the sales people couldn't VPN back in again for 24 hours / 48 hours / 72 hours. Or whatever. Get a feel for their priorities. And how quickly something becomes a priority the longer the service isn't available (this will help you draft some SLAs/OLAs - basically agreements on how much a service should be up). b) as a follow up to (a) - if they voice any real worry about a particular scenario, inform them that they are *not* covered for such scenario at the moment (or partially covered, or fully covered). That may focus their minds on the need to do something about it sooner rather than later. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:50 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question Thanks for your honest opinion, Ken. I have come to the conclusion that you and others are right. I'm going to paraphrase... I know what I know, but I don't know what I don't know and there are too many unknowns right now. I think I'm going to shelve this project for now and work on a backup/recovery solution while working on getting management to cough up the money for a consultant to help me figure out what I need. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 11:39 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question I think this thread (like all the previous ones) has gone on long enough. We are not asking you questions because we want answers. Frankly, I think most of the people here no longer care - you've used enough time as it is. *You* need to work out what your *requirements* are. Not what you're 'unhappy' about. Or what you 'think' you need. You need to find out what the business needs, in order of priority. For example you state that you need to be back up and running within 3 days. OK - a SAN is not going to help with that. Only a *recovery* system can help with that. That means some way of replacing your tape drive (if you are worried that you'll lose that), and a way of getting your tapes back, and a way of restoring. All within 3 days. That's called your RTO: Recovery Time Objective. The next thing to consider is your RPO - Recovery Point Objective. How much data can you afford to lose? One day? Two days? A week? Again *you* need to figure this out. And again, a SAN will not help you with that. The only thing a SAN is going to do is help you avoid a recovery scenario. But you haven't stated *any* requirement whatsoever about this. Is the business happy to pay $30k to ensure that they only have a disaster once every 10 years? Or would they prefer to suffer a disaster once every 5 years, but by spending $30k on a tape library, they can be up and running again in 3 days? This is what *you* need to find out. Then you can work out what you need to buy. It doesn't matter how big or small your environment is you need requirements. My environment is going to be ~4000 Wintel servers in Production alone, I suspect yours will be smaller unless the carpet business significantly picks up. Our requirements from the customer and internally run to many hundreds of pages - probably over a thousand pages now. Even my home network (where I have about 10 VM servers) has requirements. Otherwise, you are just going to be either (a) bothering people with questions forever or (b) p*ssing money up a wall on stuff you don't need. If you want help documenting what you need, then please ask for help on that. Please stop asking for advice on SAN vendors
RE: D/R and SAN
what backup software do you use? -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: 24 September 2010 16:51 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: D/R and SAN I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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 -- MIRA Ltd Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England Registered in England and Wales No. 402570 VAT Registration GB 114 5409 96 The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited. ~ 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
Re: SAN question
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, John Cook john.c...@pfsf.org wrote: I disagree on that, I want my guys to be able to do the restore because invaiably Easy for you to say. ~ 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
RE: D/R and SAN
None. -Original Message- From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:14 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN what backup software do you use? -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: 24 September 2010 16:51 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: D/R and SAN I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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 -- MIRA Ltd Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England Registered in England and Wales No. 402570 VAT Registration GB 114 5409 96 The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited. ~ 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
RE: D/R and SAN
You are missing the point. You don't know what your requirements are yet. How do you even know you need a tape library?!? Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: D/R and SAN I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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
Re: D/R and SAN
...and don't put paper in the bathroom, you may only need to take a piss. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Ken Schaefer k...@adopenstatic.com wrote: You are missing the point. You don't know what your requirements are yet. How do you even know you need a tape library?!? Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: D/R and SAN I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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
RE: D/R and SAN
Definitely something to investigate as the difference between good backup software and bad backup software is going home at night or the weekend and not wondering if your backups are going to complete. Personally I like Commvault (the product not the pricing), though they do various Express editions through Dell which give you a heck of a lot of functionality. Ken has a point about trying to nail down some requirements before pulling the trigger and buying anything, though personally I'm a little old school in that I don't care how much replication or redundancy I have in my disk storage, at some point I want a box of tapes to lock away offsite. I guess what I'm saying is that even if you're not clear where you're going to end up, a decent tape library is something I think you'll use. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: 24 September 2010 17:20 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN None. -Original Message- From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:14 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN what backup software do you use? -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: 24 September 2010 16:51 To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: D/R and SAN I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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 -- MIRA Ltd Watling Street, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, CV10 0TU, England Registered in England and Wales No. 402570 VAT Registration GB 114 5409 96 The contents of this e-mail are confidential and are solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you receive this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify us either by e-mail, telephone or fax. You should not copy, forward or otherwise disclose the content of the e-mail as this is prohibited. ~ 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
RE: D/R and SAN
Well, I need *some* sort of archival backup. I don't like not having any sort of archival backup. I suppose I could use a bunch of USB or firewire hard drives and rotate them, but I'm not really comfortable with that option as I've tried it at a previous employer and it was hideously slow. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:21 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN You are missing the point. You don't know what your requirements are yet. How do you even know you need a tape library?!? Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: D/R and SAN I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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
Re: (OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu)
Not everyone is working it at the beach just now... On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Steven M. Caesare scaes...@caesare.comwrote: Doesn’t that depend on your place of work? J -sc *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 8:47 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: (OT: Friday Funny) (Was RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu) IIRC, this is NSFW. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Michael B. Smith mich...@smithcons.com wrote: Is it Friday again? Yes it is! So, without further ado, I give you “Mongo DB is Web Scale”. http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6995033/ Regards, Michael B. Smith Consultant and Exchange MVP http://TheEssentialExchange.com http://theessentialexchange.com/ *From:* Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 2:01 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* RE: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu What doesn’t “web scale”? (what does that even mean?) *From:* Micheal Espinola Jr [mailto:michealespin...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, 24 September 2010 8:01 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: Bink.nu | Free Microsoft Security Essentials Coming for Small Businesses - Bink.nu Sure, but it doesn't web scale for . -- ME2 On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Ben Scott mailvor...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Micheal Espinola Jr michealespin...@gmail.com wrote: Not trying to be terribly anal here, but there are a few things I don't trust to free products, and this is at the top of the list. MSE isn't free; it's paid for with your Windows license fee. I tend to avoid Microsoft's security products simply because of defense-in-depth. It's a Who watches the watchmen? thing. We're talking about having a Microsoft product watch for security issues in Microsoft products. I think it's more likely for a third-party product to spot things, simply because of the different point-of-view. This reasoning doesn't apply to everything (known-bad signature-based detection, for example), but for things like heuristics and rule-based detection, I'd expect Microsoft's own people to be more susceptible to Microsoft's systemic blindspots. -- Ben ~ 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 ~ 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
RE: D/R and SAN
-Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Saturday, 25 September 2010 12:28 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN Well, I need *some* sort of archival backup. Really? You sure? I don't like not having any sort of archival backup. What you like, and what the business needs, are two different things. Think of a Venn diagram. There will be some areas that overlap between your 'likes' and 'business needs'. Everything else is wasting your time Do you need full back-ups every day? Differential? Incremental? What needs to be backed up - everything? Only some things? What is your RTO? Can some stuff be backed-up to online storage - does it all need to be offline? Etc, etc, etc. please don't bother to answer now - it's pretty clear you need to go away and figure this out All of these things drive what you need to buy. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:21 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN You are missing the point. You don't know what your requirements are yet. How do you even know you need a tape library?!? Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: D/R and SAN I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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
RE: D/R and SAN
Thanks for your input. I'll see about finding a good consultant. One of our fellow listers works for a consultancy in Atlanta and I've sent them email. -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:35 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Saturday, 25 September 2010 12:28 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN Well, I need *some* sort of archival backup. Really? You sure? I don't like not having any sort of archival backup. What you like, and what the business needs, are two different things. Think of a Venn diagram. There will be some areas that overlap between your 'likes' and 'business needs'. Everything else is wasting your time Do you need full back-ups every day? Differential? Incremental? What needs to be backed up - everything? Only some things? What is your RTO? Can some stuff be backed-up to online storage - does it all need to be offline? Etc, etc, etc. please don't bother to answer now - it's pretty clear you need to go away and figure this out All of these things drive what you need to buy. Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: Ken Schaefer [mailto:k...@adopenstatic.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:21 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: D/R and SAN You are missing the point. You don't know what your requirements are yet. How do you even know you need a tape library?!? Cheers Ken -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, 24 September 2010 11:51 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: D/R and SAN I appreciate all your input. I have decided to revisit my plan at a later date after I've gotten a better handle on how much data I have that I would need to move from desktop machines. I still hope to bring email in-house next year, but the SAN project (if it ever comes about) will probably be put off for awhile. In the meantime, for D/R purposes, I am going to see about getting a tape library with a good maintenance contract. ~ 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 ~ 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
Re: SAN question
I don't think he could do all of that for 30k with a NetApp... ;) But then, I have a bit more than 5TB of storage... On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.comwrote: 4. Buy a clustered controller config and a second one for a SnapMirror destination. There you go, the perfect config for everything you need! *From:* Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 5:46 AM *To:* NT System Admin Issues *Subject:* Re: SAN question Don't you mean 2? On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Blackstone mblackst...@gmail.com wrote: Buy a NetApp. -Original Message- From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 5:37 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: SAN question 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
OT: Monoprice
On a recommendation from this list, I ordered some adapters from monoprice.com. We really needed them, so I placed the order for overnight delivery. I just wanted to let you know that their cutoff time for ordering overnight is 6AM PST. That means I would have had to order it before 4AM CST. I am very disappointed. If you need something is a hurry, you need to keep this in mind. I don't give a darn how cheap they are, this was BS! -Paul ~ 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
RE: Monoprice
Actually, that would be more like 8AM CST, wouldn't it? Time changes always screw me up, but that's too early for a cutoff time regardless. I did get a phone call just now from them (after I ranted on the customer satisfaction survey). They are refunding my shipping costs. I feel better now. -Paul -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:16 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: OT: Monoprice On a recommendation from this list, I ordered some adapters from monoprice.com. We really needed them, so I placed the order for overnight delivery. I just wanted to let you know that their cutoff time for ordering overnight is 6AM PST. That means I would have had to order it before 4AM CST. I am very disappointed. If you need something is a hurry, you need to keep this in mind. I don't give a darn how cheap they are, this was BS! -Paul ~ 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
Re: Monoprice
Alternately, you look at it as anything I order today, will be processed tomorrow for overnight shipping, and arrive the day after that. You misunderstood the situation, not them. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.comwrote: Actually, that would be more like 8AM CST, wouldn't it? Time changes always screw me up, but that's too early for a cutoff time regardless. I did get a phone call just now from them (after I ranted on the customer satisfaction survey). They are refunding my shipping costs. I feel better now. -Paul -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:16 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: OT: Monoprice On a recommendation from this list, I ordered some adapters from monoprice.com. We really needed them, so I placed the order for overnight delivery. I just wanted to let you know that their cutoff time for ordering overnight is 6AM PST. That means I would have had to order it before 4AM CST. I am very disappointed. If you need something is a hurry, you need to keep this in mind. I don't give a darn how cheap they are, this was BS! -Paul ~ 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 -- Gary K. Slinger Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/garyslinger ~ 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
Re: OT: Monoprice
Wait a sec... that don't make sense. If their cutoff time for ordering is 6am PST, then it would have to be 9am EDT where I live. If I am figuring that right. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:16 PM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.comwrote: On a recommendation from this list, I ordered some adapters from monoprice.com. We really needed them, so I placed the order for overnight delivery. I just wanted to let you know that their cutoff time for ordering overnight is 6AM PST. That means I would have had to order it before 4AM CST. I am very disappointed. If you need something is a hurry, you need to keep this in mind. I don't give a darn how cheap they are, this was BS! -Paul ~ 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
Re: Monoprice
Right, as opposed to Same Day Shipping or Next Day Delivery. Roger Wright ___ When it's GOOD there ain't nothin' like it, and when it's BAD there ain't nothin' like it! On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Gary Slinger gary.slin...@gmail.comwrote: Alternately, you look at it as anything I order today, will be processed tomorrow for overnight shipping, and arrive the day after that. You misunderstood the situation, not them. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.comwrote: Actually, that would be more like 8AM CST, wouldn't it? Time changes always screw me up, but that's too early for a cutoff time regardless. I did get a phone call just now from them (after I ranted on the customer satisfaction survey). They are refunding my shipping costs. I feel better now. -Paul -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:16 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: OT: Monoprice On a recommendation from this list, I ordered some adapters from monoprice.com. We really needed them, so I placed the order for overnight delivery. I just wanted to let you know that their cutoff time for ordering overnight is 6AM PST. That means I would have had to order it before 4AM CST. I am very disappointed. If you need something is a hurry, you need to keep this in mind. I don't give a darn how cheap they are, this was BS! -Paul ~ 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 -- Gary K. Slinger Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/garyslinger ~ 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
Re: Monoprice
Oh, I forgot about the ranting part. Then, yeah, they did right. Life is good. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Gary Slinger gary.slin...@gmail.comwrote: Alternately, you look at it as anything I order today, will be processed tomorrow for overnight shipping, and arrive the day after that. You misunderstood the situation, not them. On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Maglinger, Paul pmaglin...@scvl.comwrote: Actually, that would be more like 8AM CST, wouldn't it? Time changes always screw me up, but that's too early for a cutoff time regardless. I did get a phone call just now from them (after I ranted on the customer satisfaction survey). They are refunding my shipping costs. I feel better now. -Paul -Original Message- From: Maglinger, Paul [mailto:pmaglin...@scvl.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:16 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: OT: Monoprice On a recommendation from this list, I ordered some adapters from monoprice.com. We really needed them, so I placed the order for overnight delivery. I just wanted to let you know that their cutoff time for ordering overnight is 6AM PST. That means I would have had to order it before 4AM CST. I am very disappointed. If you need something is a hurry, you need to keep this in mind. I don't give a darn how cheap they are, this was BS! -Paul ~ 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 -- Gary K. Slinger Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/garyslinger ~ 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
