Re: SAN question

[Micheal Espinola Jr]

+100 pts for appropriate symbol use.

--
ME2


On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Jonathan Link wrote:

> +*∞*
>
> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ken Schaefer 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

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Thanks for the advice. As suggested, I'm going to drop back and try and
evaluate what I need from a business standpoint. Thank you again.



From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:asbz...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 2:44 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

>>Because I don't feel that is sufficient.


I won't belabor this much further, but you really need to get past the
*feelings* stage, and start working with authentic, objective, actionable
data.
I'm not sure what the tipping point is here, but in all my years on this
list, I have never seen so much rejected/ignored/overlooked advice being
given on a single topic.
You need to have actual business requirements before you can generate a plan
to address them. And that is irrelevant of cost.
You can even invent the requirements if you want, in the absence of the
business side doing it, but it's got to be way more substantive than "I feel
like I don't have enough backups."
I have much more data than this on my home network -- not even accounting
for redundancy -- and I don't have a SAN.  Yet.  (That's an upcoming
project.)  And that's not a $30K problem.  At best, it's a $5K problem.  (At
home, I plan for it to be a $1K problem, max).
At %dayjob%, I just put together a 24TB solution that we'll be using for
backing up some critical data with a retention of up to 2 years (52 weeks +
12 months).  Total hardware and software costs is less than your suggested
$30K, and I can tell you exactly what problem I am solving.

Unless you're waiting for people to start speaking in tongues, I'd recommend
that you heed the abundance of great advice and guidance you've already
received -- before people start concluding that there is no benefit to
giving it.

>> Further, the second server, while physically separate from the first, is
still on the same "campus" as the first, so anything that could take one out
could, at least in theory, take the second out.
Okay, so you get a SAN and replicate less than 1TB of data to a second
campus.  Do you have supporting business continuity processes to ensure that
your employees can reach this other system in an emergency that dibiliates
your primary campus?
Feel to describe what you believe should happen in a disaster, and what type
of disaster you're anticipating.  If you have an unlimited budget, then go
for whatever catches your fancy.  Otherwise, solve your well-defined problem
for as cost-effectively as possible, and move on to solve other real
problems.
I'm likely to need a SAN on my home network before you do.  Seriously.

ASB (My XeeSM Profile) 
Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...
 


On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Aldrich
 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
 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
 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 

Re: SAN question

[Andrew S. Baker]

*>>Because I don't feel that is sufficient.**
*


I won't belabor this *much* further, but you really need to get past the
*feelings* stage, and start working with authentic, objective, actionable
data.

I'm not sure what the tipping point is here, but in all my years on this
list, I have never seen so much rejected/ignored/overlooked advice being
given on a single topic.

You need to have actual business requirements before you can generate a plan
to address them. And that is irrelevant of cost.

You can even invent the requirements if you want, in the absence of the
business side doing it, but it's got to be way more substantive than "I feel
like I don't have enough backups."

I have much more data than this on my home network -- not even accounting
for redundancy -- and I don't have a SAN.  Yet.  (That's an upcoming
project.)  And that's not a $30K problem.  At best, it's a $5K problem.  (At
home, I plan for it to be a $1K problem, max).

At %dayjob%, I just put together a 24TB solution that we'll be using for
backing up some critical data with a retention of up to 2 years (52 weeks +
12 months).  Total hardware and software costs is less than your suggested
$30K, and I can tell you exactly what problem I am solving.


Unless you're waiting for people to start speaking in tongues, I'd recommend
that you heed the abundance of great advice and guidance you've already
received -- before people start concluding that there is no benefit to
giving it.


*>>** Further, the second server, **while physically separate from the
first, is still on the same "campus" as **the first, so anything that could
take one out could, at least in theory, **take the second out.*

Okay, so you get a SAN and replicate less than 1TB of data to a second
campus.  Do you have supporting business continuity processes to ensure that
your employees can reach this other system in an emergency that dibiliates
your primary campus?

Feel to describe what you believe should happen in a disaster, and what type
of disaster you're anticipating.  If you have an unlimited budget, then go
for whatever catches your fancy.  Otherwise, solve your well-defined problem
for as cost-effectively as possible, and move on to solve other real
problems.

I'm likely to need a SAN on my home
network<http://home.asbzone.com/Diagrams/picture76107.aspx>before you
do.  Seriously.


*ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker>
*Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...*
* *



On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:23 AM, John Aldrich  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
>  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
>  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
> Su

Re: SAN question

[Raper, Jonathan - Eagle]

Double that. Oh, wait, it just did.

Jonathan L. Raper, MCSE

Thumb-typed from my HTC Incredible (and yes, it really is) Droid. Please excuse 
brevity & any misspellings.

- Reply message -
From: "Jonathan Link" 
Date: Fri, Sep 24, 2010 11:50 am
Subject: SAN question
To: "NT System Admin Issues" 

+∞

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ken Schaefer 
mailto: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<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> 
[mailto: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<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

Re: SAN question

[Don Ely]

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 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 
> 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
> >  wrote:
> > Ok, guys. I'm tryi

Re: SAN question

[Richard Stovall]

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, John Cook  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! ~
~   ~

---
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

[Ken Schaefer]

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 w

RE: SAN question

[Paul Hutchings]

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

[John Aldrich]

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.n

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

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  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
> wi

Re: SAN question

[Bill Humphries]

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: SAN question

[Ken Schaefer]

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 vol

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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

[Gary Slinger]

$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  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"
>
> 

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

+*∞*

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Ken Schaefer  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
>

RE: SAN question

[Ken Schaefer]

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

[Jonathan Link]

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  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 
> *To*: NT System Admin Issues 
> *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  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 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
>>>>
>>>>
>

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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

RE: SAN question

[greg.sweers]

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

[Ken Schaefer]

+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 Aldrich]

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  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  
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  
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  
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 
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 tha

Re: SAN question

[Bill Humphries]

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! ~
~   ~

---
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

[greg.sweers]

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 
mailto: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<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 
mailto: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<mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com>
www.eaglemds.com<http://www.eaglemds.com>

[1] Resume Generating Event


From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com<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 
mailto: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 "fil

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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

[Ken Schaefer]

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 [mail

Re: SAN question

[John Cook]

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 
To: NT System Admin Issues 
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 
mailto: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 
mailto: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 
mailto: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<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 
mailto: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<mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com>
www.eaglemds.com<http://www.eaglemds.com/>

[1] Resume Generating Event


From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com<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 
mailto: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<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 
mailto: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

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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 don’t 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
 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 
wrote:
I want to ensure that the data integrity remains intact, even if it takes a
couple day

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

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  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 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
>&g

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

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  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
>  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
>  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 

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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
 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 y

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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 
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: SA

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

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  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 

Re: SAN question

[Jeff Steward]

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  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, 

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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
 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
 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 
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
>
>
&g

Re: SAN question

[Gary Slinger]

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  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.
>
>
>
> 

Re: SAN question

[Andrew S. Baker]

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

Re: SAN question

[Jeff Steward]

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  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.
>

RE: SAN question

[greg.sweers]

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 
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

RE: SAN question

[Raper, Jonathan - Eagle]

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.commailto:%20jra...@eaglemds.com>
www.eaglemds.comhttp://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 
mailto: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<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 
mailto: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<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 
mailto: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<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<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

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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 
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
hav

Re: SAN question

[Andrew S. Baker]

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  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
>  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
> > cha

Re: SAN question

[Andrew S. Baker]

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
> >
> > We

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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
 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 
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

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

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  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 redundan

RE: SAN question

[Raper, Jonathan - Eagle]

+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:%20jra...@eaglemds.com>
www.eaglemds.comhttp://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 
mailto: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<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 
mailto: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<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<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<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 differe

RE: SAN question

[Martin Blackstone]

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 
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 
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
>  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 b

RE: SAN question

[Raper, Jonathan - Eagle]

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 
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 

Re: SAN question

[Jeff Steward]

What is your current backup solution?

-Jeff Steward

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, John Aldrich  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
> > 

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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 
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
>  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 i

Re: SAN question

[Gary Slinger]

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 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 
> 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
> >  wrote:
> > Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices w

Re: SAN question

[Kevin Lundy]

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
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
> >  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&#x

RE: SAN question

[Martin Blackstone]

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 
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 
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
>  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

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

My mistake, I bow to your superior intellect.
Grovel even!

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Martin Blackstone 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 
> 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
> >  wrote:
> > Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to
> > our
>

RE: SAN question

[Martin Blackstone]

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 
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
>  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 ini

RE: SAN question

[Martin Blackstone]

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 
>  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

RE: SAN question

[N Parr]

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 
>  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 

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

Don't you mean 2?

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Martin Blackstone 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
> >  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-hous

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

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
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
> >  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.
> >

RE: SAN question

[Ken Schaefer]

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 
>  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

RE: SAN question

[Martin Blackstone]

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 
>  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 wha

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

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
>  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
> 
> 
> 

RE: SAN question

[Steven M. Caesare]

> 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
>  wrote:
> Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to our on-
> going search for a SAN manufacturer. I'd like your thoughts on the whole
> question of adding more intelligence vs just adding more disks. i.e. the EQ vs
> LeftHand models.
> 
> I can see arguments to be made for both models. I'll tell you that, 
> initially, the
> SAN is going to be a glorified file server, however, we plan on hosting our
> email data store on the SAN when we bring email in-house later on. I've
> already verified with the email vendor that I hope to use that this is not a
> problem, so that's a non-issue. Other than that, the only database we would
> store on the SAN would possibly be the database from our Vipre install,
> although initially that would stay on the local storage.
> 
> So, I'd like to see some discussions of the benefits of just adding a tray of
> "dumb drives" or adding a complete controller along with the drives (a la
> LeftHand.)
> 
> I just don't know enough about the benefits of each model to know what
> would work best for us. I'm hoping that you guys who are more experienced
> would give me the benefit of your knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> John Aldrich
> IT Manager,
> Blueridge Carpet
> 706-276-2001, Ext. 2233
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~
> 
> ---
> To manage subscriptions click here:
> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
> or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
> 
> 
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~
> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business

Re: RE: SAN question

[Tony Patton]

The site was WWW.vm-help.com

T

On 23 Sep 2010 21:57, "Tony Patton"  wrote:

I think the only thing I had to change was the nic, at the time the onboard
one wasn't recognised.

There is a whitebox hcl somewhere, I'll have a look for it, the only other
issue I remember was the 960 had a SATA dvd drive which it didn't seem to
like either.

I also had it running on a 755 at previous job as well.

T


>
>
> >>
> >> On 23 Sep 2010 19:28, "John Aldrich" 
wrote:
> >>
>> Thanks. I'll...


>
>
> >>
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
> >> To: NT System Admin Issues
>
> Subjec...

>
> >>
> >> Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint...




>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~   ~

---
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: RE: SAN question

[Tony Patton]

I think the only thing I had to change was the nic, at the time the onboard
one wasn't recognised.

There is a whitebox hcl somewhere, I'll have a look for it, the only other
issue I remember was the 960 had a SATA dvd drive which it didn't seem to
like either.

I also had it running on a 755 at previous job as well.

T


>>
>> On 23 Sep 2010 19:28, "John Aldrich" 
wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. I'll...


>>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
>> To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

>>
>> Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint...


>
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftw...



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.c...

~ 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: RE: SAN question

[N Parr]

VMware will run on a lot of lower class hardware other than "servers".
I've been running my vsphere environment at home on a precision
workstation.  I did search the HCL list and find a good LSI SATA raid
controller that was supported that I could pick up off ebay cheap.
Since the internal raid on the motherboard is really software raid and
no matter what you do VMware will see your mirrored drives as two
separate drives.  For me that made all the difference in the machine
performance and long term stability.  And really most high end precision
workstations are just low end poweredge servers.  Mine even uses the
same ram as my 2950's.
I even installed it on a 5 year old precision laptop and it worked
perfectly.  Now that's a nice portable test/dev machine.



From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:35 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RE: SAN question


It's a support thing.  There's a lot of information about getting ESX to
run on non HCL equipment.  I wouldn't do it if I needed support, but
I've done it when I was playing around.


On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Bob Hartung 
wrote:


I'm interested in noodling around with server virtualization. I
downloaded VMware-VMvisor-Installer-4.1.0-260247.x86_64 and started
checking the requirements. I'm confused. The VMWare hardware
compatibility guide only shows server-class machines. You're running on
an Optiplex. What am I missing?


--

Bob Hartung
Wisco Industries, Inc.
736 Janesville St.
Oregon, WI 53575
Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215
Fax: (608) 835-7399
e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com <http://wiscoind.com/> 




From: Tony Patton [mailto:apco...@gmail.com]

To: NT System Admin Issues
[mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:37:32 -0500 

Subject: Re: RE: SAN question



My esxi box is just a Dell opti-plex 960 tower pc.  It's
got 2x 1tb disks, 8gb RAM & a quadcore cpu.  So it doesnt even need to
be anything special.  I'm running openfiler as a vm on it with no
issues, great for playing about and discovering different things.

T



On 23 Sep 2010 19:28, "John Aldrich"
 wrote:

Thanks. I'll see what I can find that isn't
outrageously expensive. :-)






-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings
[mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 


Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
            To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: SAN question




Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get
something off there.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security...





~ 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

[John Aldrich]

Yeah. That's the configuration that the local consultant recommended before
we bought these two big servers, rather he recommended two small 1U servers
for DCs and then a NAS box. I wish I'd listened to him instead of to Dell.
*sigh* Oh, well...can't go crying over spilled milk.



From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:40 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

Not the best configuration if OS and data are mixed so I can see your
concern there, but you wouldn't be the first organization that has run like
that.  You can probably get away with that config for awhile, depending on
how your performance metrics come back.  With your 3 to 4 day recovery
requirement a hot spare and a good warranty will do the trick =)

Having said that, buying 2 cheap 1u servers with mirrored disks to serve as
DC's isn't a bad idea.  You could then talk to Dell about adding disks
and/or a JBOD enclosure and more disks to the existing box and use it as a
dedicated file server.

-Jeff Steward
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:24 PM, John Aldrich 
wrote:
3 Disk RAID 5, I believe. The RAID controller is a Dell Perc5/I on-board.



From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:18 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

*discards message in progress*

OK, now you have defined your recovery window based on a business need.
 Given that you can tolerate a 3 to 4 day outage before panic sets in,
design a solution that meets that.  I suspect you already have that with
your existing servers.

What is your current disk configuration and RAID levels for your DCs acting
as file servers?

-Jeff Steward
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM, John Aldrich 
wrote:
Well, I'd like to have RAID, plus redundant RAID controllers (if possible)
and redundant power supplies, network, etc. That's one reason I was looking
at a SAN was I can get redundant everything. I guess it's not as critical to
have redundant controllers, since the CEO has said that as long as we get
the CIFS files back online within 3-4 days, we'll be good.




-Original Message-
From: Don Ely - sc thinks I am a good man... [mailto:don@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

What kind of redundancy are you looking for I'm regards to file shares?
Just RAID or is there more to it that I'm missing?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "John Aldrich" 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:15
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-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
 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 th

Re: RE: RE: SAN question

[Tony Patton]

2 separate disks, one has all the vm's, the other is allocated to openfiler,
one of the vm's is connected to openfiler with iscsi as a test, I also have
it mounted back to the esxi host via nos and connect my main pc to it over
cifs.

As this is only my home server, redundancy was never a requirement for me.
If I could afford another decent box I'd fill it with 2tb disks and use
openfiler nativly on that one, or something like a 7bay thecus or 2 :)

T

On 23 Sep 2010 21:15, "John Aldrich"  wrote:

Thanks... Do you have the two disks in a RAID array or just a JBOD? I've got
a dual-CPU motherboard in a generic rack-mount chassis that I was thinking
of using, which is why I was looking to find a PCI RAID card that was
supported by ESXi. I guess I don't really *have* to do that even... :-)



From: Tony Patton [mailto:apco...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:38 PM

To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RE: SAN question


My esxi box is just a Dell opti-plex 960 tower pc.  It's got 2x 1tb disks,
8gb RAM & a quadcore cpu...

Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues

Subject: RE: SAN question
Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
~ Finally, ...

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com...

~ 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

[Sean Martin]

So now that you have your SLA, you'll want to consider part availability in
your research. If you decide to go with a lesser-known solution because they
offer some of the other features "you'd like to have" within your price
range, can they guarantee replacement parts in 3-4 days?

It seems like you want a SAN, because you recognize the capabilities, but
you really don't seem to have a justified business need for one. Rather than
focus on something that fits within your price range, pick 2-3 solutions
that meet some or all of your requirements, and let the people with the
money decide.

Ex:

1) A good robust server with the appropriate capacity, hardware RAID,
maintenance contract (for parts replacement). If it provides the space
you're after, meets your performance requirements (I noticed you don't know
your IOPS requirements yet) and can meet your SLA, then you're golden.

2) A small/mid level NAS/SAN, possibly off-brand, that also meets the same
requirements as option 1, but adds other capabilities (i.e. Centralized
Storage, Dynamic Growth, etc. etc.)

3) A mid range NAS/SAN, meets all of the above, but possibly includes other
features such as replication, thin provisioning, deduplication, additional
hardware redundancy, etc.

You may find that the company is interested in additional capabilities. Once
their benefits are presented, they may be more willing to increase your
budget. Or, they may recognize that a simple file server meets your
immediate needs and then you have an easy implementation ahead of you.

Just food for thought...

- Sean

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:13 PM, John Aldrich  wrote:

> Well, I'd like to have RAID, plus redundant RAID controllers (if possible)
> and redundant power supplies, network, etc. That's one reason I was looking
> at a SAN was I can get redundant everything. I guess it's not as critical
> to
> have redundant controllers, since the CEO has said that as long as we get
> the CIFS files back online within 3-4 days, we'll be good.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Don Ely - sc thinks I am a good man... [mailto:don@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:30 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: SAN question
>
> What kind of redundancy are you looking for I'm regards to file shares?
> Just RAID or is there more to it that I'm missing?
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "John Aldrich" 
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:15
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Reply-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
>  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

Re: SAN question

[Jeff Steward]

Not the best configuration if OS and data are mixed so I can see your
concern there, but you wouldn't be the first organization that has run like
that.  You can probably get away with that config for awhile, depending on
how your performance metrics come back.  With your 3 to 4 day recovery
requirement a hot spare and a good warranty will do the trick =)

Having said that, buying 2 cheap 1u servers with mirrored disks to serve as
DC's isn't a bad idea.  You could then talk to Dell about adding disks
and/or a JBOD enclosure and more disks to the existing box and use it as a
dedicated file server.

-Jeff Steward

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:24 PM, John Aldrich
wrote:

> 3 Disk RAID 5, I believe. The RAID controller is a Dell Perc5/I on-board.
>
>
>
> From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:18 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: SAN question
>
> *discards message in progress*
>
> OK, now you have defined your recovery window based on a business need.
>  Given that you can tolerate a 3 to 4 day outage before panic sets in,
> design a solution that meets that.  I suspect you already have that with
> your existing servers.
>
> What is your current disk configuration and RAID levels for your DCs acting
> as file servers?
>
> -Jeff Steward
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM, John Aldrich <
> jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com>
> wrote:
> Well, I'd like to have RAID, plus redundant RAID controllers (if possible)
> and redundant power supplies, network, etc. That's one reason I was looking
> at a SAN was I can get redundant everything. I guess it's not as critical
> to
> have redundant controllers, since the CEO has said that as long as we get
> the CIFS files back online within 3-4 days, we'll be good.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Don Ely - sc thinks I am a good man... [mailto:don@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:30 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: SAN question
>
> What kind of redundancy are you looking for I'm regards to file shares?
> Just RAID or is there more to it that I'm missing?
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "John Aldrich" 
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:15
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Reply-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
>  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 w

Re: RE: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

It's a support thing.  There's a lot of information about getting ESX to run
on non HCL equipment.  I wouldn't do it if I needed support, but I've done
it when I was playing around.

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Bob Hartung  wrote:

>  I'm interested in noodling around with server virtualization. I
> downloaded VMware-VMvisor-Installer-4.1.0-260247.x86_64 and started checking
> the requirements. I'm confused. The VMWare hardware compatibility guide only
> shows server-class machines. You're running on an Optiplex. What am I
> missing?
>
> --
>
> Bob Hartung
> Wisco Industries, Inc.
> 736 Janesville St.
> Oregon, WI 53575
> Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215
> Fax: (608) 835-7399
> e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com
>
> --
> *From:* Tony Patton [mailto:apco...@gmail.com]
> *To:* NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysadmin@lyris.sunbelt-software.com
> ]
> *Sent:* Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:37:32 -0500
>
> *Subject:* Re: RE: SAN question
>
> My esxi box is just a Dell opti-plex 960 tower pc.  It's got 2x 1tb disks,
> 8gb RAM & a quadcore cpu.  So it doesnt even need to be anything special.
> I'm running openfiler as a vm on it with no issues, great for playing about
> and discovering different things.
>
> T
>
>  On 23 Sep 2010 19:28, "John Aldrich" 
> wrote:
>
> Thanks. I'll see what I can find that isn't outrageously expensive. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: SAN question
>
>  Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security...
>
>  ~ 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: RE: SAN question

[Bob Hartung]

I'm interested in noodling around with server virtualization. I downloaded 
VMware-VMvisor-Installer-4.1.0-260247.x86_64 and started checking the 
requirements. I'm confused. The VMWare hardware compatibility guide only shows 
server-class machines. You're running on an Optiplex. What am I missing?

--

Bob Hartung
Wisco Industries, Inc.
736 Janesville St.
Oregon, WI 53575
Tel: (608) 835-3106 x215
Fax: (608) 835-7399
e-mail: bhartung(at)wiscoind.com
  _  

From: Tony Patton [mailto:apco...@gmail.com]
To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:ntsysad...@lyris.sunbelt-software.com]
Sent: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 14:37:32 -0500
Subject: Re: RE: SAN question



My esxi box is just a Dell opti-plex 960 tower pc.  It's got 2x 1tb disks, 8gb 
RAM & a quadcore cpu.  So it doesnt even need to be anything special.  I'm 
running openfiler as a vm on it with no issues, great for playing about and 
discovering different things.

T  

On 23 Sep 2010 19:28, "John Aldrich"  wrote:

Thanks. I'll see what I can find that isn't outrageously expensive. :-)
  





-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 

Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question


Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security...



~ 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

[John Aldrich]

3 Disk RAID 5, I believe. The RAID controller is a Dell Perc5/I on-board.



From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 4:18 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

*discards message in progress*

OK, now you have defined your recovery window based on a business need.
 Given that you can tolerate a 3 to 4 day outage before panic sets in,
design a solution that meets that.  I suspect you already have that with
your existing servers.

What is your current disk configuration and RAID levels for your DCs acting
as file servers?

-Jeff Steward
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM, John Aldrich 
wrote:
Well, I'd like to have RAID, plus redundant RAID controllers (if possible)
and redundant power supplies, network, etc. That's one reason I was looking
at a SAN was I can get redundant everything. I guess it's not as critical to
have redundant controllers, since the CEO has said that as long as we get
the CIFS files back online within 3-4 days, we'll be good.




-Original Message-
From: Don Ely - sc thinks I am a good man... [mailto:don@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

What kind of redundancy are you looking for I'm regards to file shares?
Just RAID or is there more to it that I'm missing?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "John Aldrich" 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:15
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-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
 wrote:
Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to our
on-going search for a SAN manufacturer. I'd like your thoughts on the whole
question of adding more intelligence vs just adding more disks. i.e. the EQ
vs LeftHand models.

I can see arguments to be made for both models. I'll tell you that,
initially, the SAN is going to be a glorified file server, however, we plan
on hosting our email data store on the SAN when we bring email in-house
later on. I've already verified with the email vendor that I hope to use
that this is not a problem, so that's a non-issue. Other than that, the only
database we would store on the SAN would possibly be the database from our
Vipre install, although initially that would stay on the local storage.

So, I'd like to see some discussions of the benefits of just adding a tray
of "dumb drives" or adding a complete controller along with the drives (a la
LeftHand.)

I just don't know enough about the benefits of each model to know what would
work best for us. I'm hoping that you guys who are more experienced would
give me the benefit of your knowledge.



Thanks,
John Aldrich
IT Manager,
Blueridge Carpet
706-276-2001, Ext. 2233



~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the

Re: SAN question

[Jeff Steward]

*discards message in progress*

OK, now you have defined your recovery window based on a business need.
 Given that you can tolerate a 3 to 4 day outage before panic sets in,
design a solution that meets that.  I suspect you already have that with
your existing servers.

What is your current disk configuration and RAID levels for your DCs acting
as file servers?

-Jeff Steward

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 4:13 PM, John Aldrich
wrote:

> Well, I'd like to have RAID, plus redundant RAID controllers (if possible)
> and redundant power supplies, network, etc. That's one reason I was looking
> at a SAN was I can get redundant everything. I guess it's not as critical
> to
> have redundant controllers, since the CEO has said that as long as we get
> the CIFS files back online within 3-4 days, we'll be good.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Don Ely - sc thinks I am a good man... [mailto:don@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:30 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: SAN question
>
> What kind of redundancy are you looking for I'm regards to file shares?
> Just RAID or is there more to it that I'm missing?
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "John Aldrich" 
> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:15
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Reply-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
>  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: 

RE: RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Thanks... Do you have the two disks in a RAID array or just a JBOD? I've got
a dual-CPU motherboard in a generic rack-mount chassis that I was thinking
of using, which is why I was looking to find a PCI RAID card that was
supported by ESXi. I guess I don't really *have* to do that even... :-)



From: Tony Patton [mailto:apco...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:38 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: RE: SAN question

My esxi box is just a Dell opti-plex 960 tower pc.  It's got 2x 1tb disks,
8gb RAM & a quadcore cpu.  So it doesnt even need to be anything special. 
I'm running openfiler as a vm on it with no issues, great for playing about
and discovering different things.
T
On 23 Sep 2010 19:28, "John Aldrich"  wrote:

Thanks. I'll see what I can find that isn't outrageously expensive. :-)




-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question
Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security...
~ 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

[John Aldrich]

Well, I'd like to have RAID, plus redundant RAID controllers (if possible)
and redundant power supplies, network, etc. That's one reason I was looking
at a SAN was I can get redundant everything. I guess it's not as critical to
have redundant controllers, since the CEO has said that as long as we get
the CIFS files back online within 3-4 days, we'll be good.




-Original Message-
From: Don Ely - sc thinks I am a good man... [mailto:don@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:30 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

What kind of redundancy are you looking for I'm regards to file shares?
Just RAID or is there more to it that I'm missing?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "John Aldrich" 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:15 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-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
 wrote:
Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to our
on-going search for a SAN manufacturer. I'd like your thoughts on the whole
question of adding more intelligence vs just adding more disks. i.e. the EQ
vs LeftHand models.

I can see arguments to be made for both models. I'll tell you that,
initially, the SAN is going to be a glorified file server, however, we plan
on hosting our email data store on the SAN when we bring email in-house
later on. I've already verified with the email vendor that I hope to use
that this is not a problem, so that's a non-issue. Other than that, the only
database we would store on the SAN would possibly be the database from our
Vipre install, although initially that would stay on the local storage.

So, I'd like to see some discussions of the benefits of just adding a tray
of "dumb drives" or adding a complete controller along with the drives (a la
LeftHand.)

I just don't know enough about the benefits of each model to know what would
work best for us. I'm hoping that you guys who are more experienced would
give me the benefit of your knowledge.



Thanks,
John Aldrich
IT Manager,
Blueridge Carpet
706-276-2001, Ext. 2233




~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ 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.sunbelt

Re: RE: SAN question

[Tony Patton]

My esxi box is just a Dell opti-plex 960 tower pc.  It's got 2x 1tb disks,
8gb RAM & a quadcore cpu.  So it doesnt even need to be anything special.
I'm running openfiler as a vm on it with no issues, great for playing about
and discovering different things.

T

On 23 Sep 2010 19:28, "John Aldrich"  wrote:

Thanks. I'll see what I can find that isn't outrageously expensive. :-)





-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]

Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security...

~ 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

[Don Ely - sc thinks I am a good man...]

What kind of redundancy are you looking for I'm regards to file shares?  Just 
RAID or is there more to it that I'm missing?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: "John Aldrich" 
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 15:28:15 
To: NT System Admin Issues
Reply-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
 wrote:
Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to our
on-going search for a SAN manufacturer. I'd like your thoughts on the whole
question of adding more intelligence vs just adding more disks. i.e. the EQ
vs LeftHand models.

I can see arguments to be made for both models. I'll tell you that,
initially, the SAN is going to be a glorified file server, however, we plan
on hosting our email data store on the SAN when we bring email in-house
later on. I've already verified with the email vendor that I hope to use
that this is not a problem, so that's a non-issue. Other than that, the only
database we would store on the SAN would possibly be the database from our
Vipre install, although initially that would stay on the local storage.

So, I'd like to see some discussions of the benefits of just adding a tray
of "dumb drives" or adding a complete controller along with the drives (a la
LeftHand.)

I just don't know enough about the benefits of each model to know what would
work best for us. I'm hoping that you guys who are more experienced would
give me the benefit of your knowledge.



Thanks,
John Aldrich
IT Manager,
Blueridge Carpet
706-276-2001, Ext. 2233




~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ 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

[John Aldrich]

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
 wrote:
Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to our
on-going search for a SAN manufacturer. I'd like your thoughts on the whole
question of adding more intelligence vs just adding more disks. i.e. the EQ
vs LeftHand models.

I can see arguments to be made for both models. I'll tell you that,
initially, the SAN is going to be a glorified file server, however, we plan
on hosting our email data store on the SAN when we bring email in-house
later on. I've already verified with the email vendor that I hope to use
that this is not a problem, so that's a non-issue. Other than that, the only
database we would store on the SAN would possibly be the database from our
Vipre install, although initially that would stay on the local storage.

So, I'd like to see some discussions of the benefits of just adding a tray
of "dumb drives" or adding a complete controller along with the drives (a la
LeftHand.)

I just don't know enough about the benefits of each model to know what would
work best for us. I'm hoping that you guys who are more experienced would
give me the benefit of your knowledge.



Thanks,
John Aldrich
IT Manager,
Blueridge Carpet
706-276-2001, Ext. 2233




~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/>  ~

---
To manage subscriptions click here:
http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/
or send an email to listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com
with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin


~ 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

[Paul Hutchings]

For testing do you even need to bother with RAID (or rather spending the money 
just to have RAID for testing)?

What I would do is try a P4000 VSA and something like the OpenFiler Virtual 
Appliance which can do NFS, CIFS or iSCSI then you'll have some hands-on with 
shared storage and you'll be a little wiser on where a NAS device may be more 
useful than a SAN, or not.

One thing I noticed in one of your earlier posts is that you referred to being 
able to do SAN level replication - to what (if you only have one device)?

Oh and the IOPS stuff I listed, I'd do that ASAP, I suspect it'll come back 
showing you have very low utilization in spite of the data volume but you do 
need the IOPS numbers.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
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

[Bill Humphries]

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 
> mailto: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! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> 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! ~
> ~   ~
>
> ---
> 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! ~
~   ~

---
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 Aldrich]

Thanks. I'll see what I can find that isn't outrageously expensive. :-)




-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 2:02 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
~ 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

[Paul Hutchings]

Have a look at the ESX/ESXi HCL's and get something off there.
~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
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

[Jonathan Link]

I should also say, that virtualizing storage doesn't really get compelling
until you're running virtual servers.  Don't get me wrong, it's nice.  But
so are virtualized servers.  Putting them together is like mixing chocolate
and peanut butter and geeting a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup.
I had a $30,000 budget, I managed to get an EQ box on the cheap (thanks Andy
Shook!) and came in well under budget.  I was planning to implement HA, but
in the end we decided against it.  I don't need the instant failover, or
rather our business doesn't, in the event of a physical server failure.  I
managed to come into my SAN and VMWare environment under budget, which made
me look like a hero to my boss.  John, that should be your goal.  If you
really do have a $30,000 budget, finding a way to do it cheaper and faster
is going to make you a hero.
My remaining nagging issue, is that I have a single point of failure on my
storage array, which is where the DroboElite comes in
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Paul Hutchings
wrote:

> John, if you go out tomorrow and spend $30k on a SAN from anyone I think
> you will regret it.
>
> Do what I said and try a few Virtual Appliance SAN's that let you turn a
> couple of servers with DAS into a resilient SAN.
>
> Once you've spent a little time using some of the demo downloads under ESXi
> you'll get a far better understanding of what a SAN or other shared storage
> device can do than you will any amount of reading or listening to sales
> people (who all have an obvious agenda).
>
> Paul
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
> Sent: 23 September 2010 18:16
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: SAN question
>
> Yeah... pretty much everyone I've talked to so far can sell me something
> that'll meet the basic requirements, but then it comes down to things like
> "Will I get better bang for the buck by using something with intelligence
> to
> expand the storage or will I do better if I just get a 'dumb' tray of
> drives?" Questions like that are what is making this more difficult.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:45 PM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: SAN question
>
> I still think the best thing you can do John is go buy a server.  Get
> something entry level but half-decent, stick ESXi on it and just download
> and play with a shedload of storage virtual appliances.
>
> FreeNAS, OpenFilter, HP P4000 VSA, EMC Celerra to name but a few.
>
> I've actually just got back from a Dell tech day where one of their product
> specialists was giving the "frame vs. module" differences and even he
> acknowledged it's just not clear cut as each has pros and cons.
>
> IOPS is pretty simple, at a basic level you want to run performance monitor
> and log the following counters to CSV:
>
> \\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Reads/sec
> \\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Writes/sec
> \\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec
> \\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Read Bytes/sec
> \\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Write Bytes/sec
> \\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Read
> \\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Write
>
> Run it for at least 24 hours and have it log every 3 seconds or so and try
> and make your loggin period represent typical usage.
>
> At the end of it all, use Excel and work out a percentile for the counter -
> "\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec" - many vendors use 95th
> percentile if you want to size for "normal usage", if you want to size for
> performance go with 99th percentile (or of course even higher).
>
> In some ways I suspect you're in a similar situation to me in that we're
> actively looking for a replacement SAN and there are several vendors and
> models each of which would do what we need and not too far apart in price -
> it's a lot more difficult to narrow them down when you're into "wooly"
> things that are harder to measure like ROI and TCO (guess what, every
> vendors says theirs will save you the most money) than when you can
> actively
> rule out vendors A, C and D because they don't do what you need.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
> Sent: 23 September 2010 17:03
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: SAN question
>
> Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
> educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
> resellers of various S

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Thanks. I've got a test machine that I can add some drives to and play
around with. I'll have to find a good RAID controller to use in that box.
Any suggestions for a decent PCI RAID controller for a "proof of concept"
box? Not going to be using it for anything other than what you suggested.

Thanks...
John




-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 1:23 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

John, if you go out tomorrow and spend $30k on a SAN from anyone I think you
will regret it.

Do what I said and try a few Virtual Appliance SAN's that let you turn a
couple of servers with DAS into a resilient SAN.

Once you've spent a little time using some of the demo downloads under ESXi
you'll get a far better understanding of what a SAN or other shared storage
device can do than you will any amount of reading or listening to sales
people (who all have an obvious agenda).

Paul

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: 23 September 2010 18:16
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Yeah... pretty much everyone I've talked to so far can sell me something
that'll meet the basic requirements, but then it comes down to things like
"Will I get better bang for the buck by using something with intelligence to
expand the storage or will I do better if I just get a 'dumb' tray of
drives?" Questions like that are what is making this more difficult.




-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:45 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

I still think the best thing you can do John is go buy a server.  Get
something entry level but half-decent, stick ESXi on it and just download
and play with a shedload of storage virtual appliances.

FreeNAS, OpenFilter, HP P4000 VSA, EMC Celerra to name but a few.

I've actually just got back from a Dell tech day where one of their product
specialists was giving the "frame vs. module" differences and even he
acknowledged it's just not clear cut as each has pros and cons.

IOPS is pretty simple, at a basic level you want to run performance monitor
and log the following counters to CSV:

\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Reads/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Writes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Read Bytes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Write Bytes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Read
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Write

Run it for at least 24 hours and have it log every 3 seconds or so and try
and make your loggin period represent typical usage.  

At the end of it all, use Excel and work out a percentile for the counter -
"\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec" - many vendors use 95th
percentile if you want to size for "normal usage", if you want to size for
performance go with 99th percentile (or of course even higher).

In some ways I suspect you're in a similar situation to me in that we're
actively looking for a replacement SAN and there are several vendors and
models each of which would do what we need and not too far apart in price -
it's a lot more difficult to narrow them down when you're into "wooly"
things that are harder to measure like ROI and TCO (guess what, every
vendors says theirs will save you the most money) than when you can actively
rule out vendors A, C and D because they don't do what you need.

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: 23 September 2010 17:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
resellers of various SANs, each of them pushing their own vendor that I'm
really confused. What I really need to find is someone without an axe to
grind who can help me figure out what my needs are and what storage method
would best suit my needs.



From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other
Jonathan. It's not that we don't want to help, we really do, but everyone
has to do some work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does
not APPEAR that you have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to
be able to ask appropriate questions of this list.

Once you've met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions
answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like
you're getting the ru

RE: SAN question

[Paul Hutchings]

John, if you go out tomorrow and spend $30k on a SAN from anyone I think you 
will regret it.

Do what I said and try a few Virtual Appliance SAN's that let you turn a couple 
of servers with DAS into a resilient SAN.

Once you've spent a little time using some of the demo downloads under ESXi 
you'll get a far better understanding of what a SAN or other shared storage 
device can do than you will any amount of reading or listening to sales people 
(who all have an obvious agenda).

Paul

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: 23 September 2010 18:16
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Yeah... pretty much everyone I've talked to so far can sell me something
that'll meet the basic requirements, but then it comes down to things like
"Will I get better bang for the buck by using something with intelligence to
expand the storage or will I do better if I just get a 'dumb' tray of
drives?" Questions like that are what is making this more difficult.




-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:45 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

I still think the best thing you can do John is go buy a server.  Get
something entry level but half-decent, stick ESXi on it and just download
and play with a shedload of storage virtual appliances.

FreeNAS, OpenFilter, HP P4000 VSA, EMC Celerra to name but a few.

I've actually just got back from a Dell tech day where one of their product
specialists was giving the "frame vs. module" differences and even he
acknowledged it's just not clear cut as each has pros and cons.

IOPS is pretty simple, at a basic level you want to run performance monitor
and log the following counters to CSV:

\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Reads/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Writes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Read Bytes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Write Bytes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Read
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Write

Run it for at least 24 hours and have it log every 3 seconds or so and try
and make your loggin period represent typical usage.  

At the end of it all, use Excel and work out a percentile for the counter -
"\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec" - many vendors use 95th
percentile if you want to size for "normal usage", if you want to size for
performance go with 99th percentile (or of course even higher).

In some ways I suspect you're in a similar situation to me in that we're
actively looking for a replacement SAN and there are several vendors and
models each of which would do what we need and not too far apart in price -
it's a lot more difficult to narrow them down when you're into "wooly"
things that are harder to measure like ROI and TCO (guess what, every
vendors says theirs will save you the most money) than when you can actively
rule out vendors A, C and D because they don't do what you need.

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: 23 September 2010 17:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
resellers of various SANs, each of them pushing their own vendor that I'm
really confused. What I really need to find is someone without an axe to
grind who can help me figure out what my needs are and what storage method
would best suit my needs.



From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other
Jonathan. It's not that we don't want to help, we really do, but everyone
has to do some work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does
not APPEAR that you have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to
be able to ask appropriate questions of this list.

Once you've met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions
answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like
you're getting the runaround, then ask this list a targeted, specific
question about a particular feature or function.

At that point, of framed appropriately, I'm willing to bet you'll get an
entirely different grade of response which will be useful to you, and
perhaps others.

Best of luck,
Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
Technology Coordinator
Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
jra...@eaglemds.com
www.eaglemds.com 
____________
From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: T

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Yeah... pretty much everyone I've talked to so far can sell me something
that'll meet the basic requirements, but then it comes down to things like
"Will I get better bang for the buck by using something with intelligence to
expand the storage or will I do better if I just get a 'dumb' tray of
drives?" Questions like that are what is making this more difficult.




-Original Message-
From: Paul Hutchings [mailto:paul.hutchi...@mira.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:45 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

I still think the best thing you can do John is go buy a server.  Get
something entry level but half-decent, stick ESXi on it and just download
and play with a shedload of storage virtual appliances.

FreeNAS, OpenFilter, HP P4000 VSA, EMC Celerra to name but a few.

I've actually just got back from a Dell tech day where one of their product
specialists was giving the "frame vs. module" differences and even he
acknowledged it's just not clear cut as each has pros and cons.

IOPS is pretty simple, at a basic level you want to run performance monitor
and log the following counters to CSV:

\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Reads/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Writes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Read Bytes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Write Bytes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Read
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Write

Run it for at least 24 hours and have it log every 3 seconds or so and try
and make your loggin period represent typical usage.  

At the end of it all, use Excel and work out a percentile for the counter -
"\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec" - many vendors use 95th
percentile if you want to size for "normal usage", if you want to size for
performance go with 99th percentile (or of course even higher).

In some ways I suspect you're in a similar situation to me in that we're
actively looking for a replacement SAN and there are several vendors and
models each of which would do what we need and not too far apart in price -
it's a lot more difficult to narrow them down when you're into "wooly"
things that are harder to measure like ROI and TCO (guess what, every
vendors says theirs will save you the most money) than when you can actively
rule out vendors A, C and D because they don't do what you need.

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: 23 September 2010 17:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
resellers of various SANs, each of them pushing their own vendor that I'm
really confused. What I really need to find is someone without an axe to
grind who can help me figure out what my needs are and what storage method
would best suit my needs.



From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other
Jonathan. It's not that we don't want to help, we really do, but everyone
has to do some work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does
not APPEAR that you have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to
be able to ask appropriate questions of this list.

Once you've met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions
answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like
you're getting the runaround, then ask this list a targeted, specific
question about a particular feature or function.

At that point, of framed appropriately, I'm willing to bet you'll get an
entirely different grade of response which will be useful to you, and
perhaps others.

Best of luck,
Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
Technology Coordinator
Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
jra...@eaglemds.com
www.eaglemds.com 
________
From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR
questions.  Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you
attempted to answer them.  
Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do
yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your
own questions.  
 
We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you
started asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but we
cannot do that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our
own problem

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Thank you. I appreciate your input, John. I'm trying to get there from here,
and I'm going to talk to several more vendors/resellers to see what options
they have. I'm trying to avoid both the high-end stuff and the low-end stuff
as I'm not sure either option is right for me. The high-end stuff has a lot
of bells and whistles but they're outrageously expensive. The low-end stuff
I have concerns about the reliability and whether they'll be there in the
event of a problem in the future. :-)




-Original Message-
From: John Cook [mailto:john.c...@pfsf.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:14 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

It's really no different than car shopping. You may only need a compact
(DAS) to cover your immediate needs but a full size truck (SAN) may serve
you better for future needs. As far as all the vendors go, they all assure
their product is "the best option" in that segment and while some claim some
special amazing technology (like accident avoidance sensors in some cars)
these come at a price and don't always have much effect on the overall
performance of getting you where you NEED to go. Decide what you NEED now
and what you can afford and add future proofing from there.

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
resellers of various SANs, each of them pushing their own vendor that I'm
really confused. What I really need to find is someone without an axe to
grind who can help me figure out what my needs are and what storage method
would best suit my needs.



From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other
Jonathan. It's not that we don't want to help, we really do, but everyone
has to do some work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does
not APPEAR that you have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to
be able to ask appropriate questions of this list.

Once you've met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions
answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like
you're getting the runaround, then ask this list a targeted, specific
question about a particular feature or function.

At that point, of framed appropriately, I'm willing to bet you'll get an
entirely different grade of response which will be useful to you, and
perhaps others.

Best of luck,
Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
Technology Coordinator
Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
jra...@eaglemds.com
www.eaglemds.com

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR
questions.  Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you
attempted to answer them.
Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do
yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your
own questions.

We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you
started asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but we
cannot do that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our
own problems to solve.  If you go back and look at the posts of frequent
contributors to this list, you'll see requests from people who are in a jam
and need some instant advice because they're stuck on something, or they may
have gotten turned around in their research and need to trackback and
confirm their understanding.  These are the types of things a list is good
at solving.  Filling in gaps in your skill set or educating you on a broad
technology segment is not.  We are not in elementary school anymore.  We're
asking you questions, not because we need to know the answers, but because
you need to ask and answer the questions.  Note: if someone comes back with
a recommendation on doing something you don't know how to do, it isn't
really acceptible to say, I don't know how to do X, can you tell me?  I
would venture to say you should learn to use Google to help fill in your
gaps.



On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, John Aldrich
 wrote:
To answer your questions in order:
1) Failover capability would be very good to have. I need a minimum of two
controllers so that if one fails, at least we can run on the other until we
fix the first. That could also be handled by a dual-controlle

RE: SAN question

[Paul Hutchings]

I still think the best thing you can do John is go buy a server.  Get something 
entry level but half-decent, stick ESXi on it and just download and play with a 
shedload of storage virtual appliances.

FreeNAS, OpenFilter, HP P4000 VSA, EMC Celerra to name but a few.

I've actually just got back from a Dell tech day where one of their product 
specialists was giving the "frame vs. module" differences and even he 
acknowledged it's just not clear cut as each has pros and cons.

IOPS is pretty simple, at a basic level you want to run performance monitor and 
log the following counters to CSV:

\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Reads/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Writes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Read Bytes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Write Bytes/sec
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Read
\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Avg. Disk Bytes/Write

Run it for at least 24 hours and have it log every 3 seconds or so and try and 
make your loggin period represent typical usage.  

At the end of it all, use Excel and work out a percentile for the counter - 
"\\SERVER\PhysicalDisk(_Total)\Disk Transfers/sec" - many vendors use 95th 
percentile if you want to size for "normal usage", if you want to size for 
performance go with 99th percentile (or of course even higher).

In some ways I suspect you're in a similar situation to me in that we're 
actively looking for a replacement SAN and there are several vendors and models 
each of which would do what we need and not too far apart in price - it's a lot 
more difficult to narrow them down when you're into "wooly" things that are 
harder to measure like ROI and TCO (guess what, every vendors says theirs will 
save you the most money) than when you can actively rule out vendors A, C and D 
because they don't do what you need.

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] 
Sent: 23 September 2010 17:03
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
resellers of various SANs, each of them pushing their own vendor that I'm
really confused. What I really need to find is someone without an axe to
grind who can help me figure out what my needs are and what storage method
would best suit my needs.



From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other
Jonathan. It's not that we don't want to help, we really do, but everyone
has to do some work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does
not APPEAR that you have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to
be able to ask appropriate questions of this list.

Once you've met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions
answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like
you're getting the runaround, then ask this list a targeted, specific
question about a particular feature or function.

At that point, of framed appropriately, I'm willing to bet you'll get an
entirely different grade of response which will be useful to you, and
perhaps others.

Best of luck,
Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
Technology Coordinator
Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
jra...@eaglemds.com
www.eaglemds.com 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR
questions.  Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you
attempted to answer them.  
Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do
yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your
own questions.  
 
We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you
started asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but we
cannot do that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our
own problems to solve.  If you go back and look at the posts of frequent
contributors to this list, you'll see requests from people who are in a jam
and need some instant advice because they're stuck on something, or they may
have gotten turned around in their research and need to trackback and
confirm their understanding.  These are the types of things a list is good
at solving.  Filling in gaps in your skill set or educating you on a broad
technology segment is not.  We are not in elementary school anymore.  We're
asking you questions, not because we 

RE: SAN question

[John Cook]

It's really no different than car shopping. You may only need a compact (DAS) 
to cover your immediate needs but a full size truck (SAN) may serve you better 
for future needs. As far as all the vendors go, they all assure their product 
is "the best option" in that segment and while some claim some special amazing 
technology (like accident avoidance sensors in some cars) these come at a price 
and don't always have much effect on the overall performance of getting you 
where you NEED to go. Decide what you NEED now and what you can afford and add 
future proofing from there.

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 12:03 PM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
resellers of various SANs, each of them pushing their own vendor that I'm
really confused. What I really need to find is someone without an axe to
grind who can help me figure out what my needs are and what storage method
would best suit my needs.



From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other
Jonathan. It's not that we don't want to help, we really do, but everyone
has to do some work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does
not APPEAR that you have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to
be able to ask appropriate questions of this list.

Once you've met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions
answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like
you're getting the runaround, then ask this list a targeted, specific
question about a particular feature or function.

At that point, of framed appropriately, I'm willing to bet you'll get an
entirely different grade of response which will be useful to you, and
perhaps others.

Best of luck,
Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
Technology Coordinator
Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
jra...@eaglemds.com
www.eaglemds.com

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR
questions.  Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you
attempted to answer them.
Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do
yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your
own questions.

We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you
started asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but we
cannot do that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our
own problems to solve.  If you go back and look at the posts of frequent
contributors to this list, you'll see requests from people who are in a jam
and need some instant advice because they're stuck on something, or they may
have gotten turned around in their research and need to trackback and
confirm their understanding.  These are the types of things a list is good
at solving.  Filling in gaps in your skill set or educating you on a broad
technology segment is not.  We are not in elementary school anymore.  We're
asking you questions, not because we need to know the answers, but because
you need to ask and answer the questions.  Note: if someone comes back with
a recommendation on doing something you don't know how to do, it isn't
really acceptible to say, I don't know how to do X, can you tell me?  I
would venture to say you should learn to use Google to help fill in your
gaps.



On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, John Aldrich
 wrote:
To answer your questions in order:
1) Failover capability would be very good to have. I need a minimum of two
controllers so that if one fails, at least we can run on the other until we
fix the first. That could also be handled by a dual-controller "head" unit.
So that brings single-node with dumb drive trays back equal with "smart"
trays.
2) Scalability -- I firmly believe that your data WILL eventually grow to
match available disk space, so I'd like the ability to add space easily.
That being said, either method will work to add space.

So far, my *MINIMUM* requirements are as follows:
1) No single point of failure (Redundant power, redundant controllers, RAID,
redundant Ethernet, etc.)
2) Approximately 5 Tb of useable disk space (that should give us a little
breathing room once we start redirecting critical folders from users'
desktop machines and add in email)
3) RAID 5 minimum to help preve

Re: SAN question

[Jeff Steward]

The classic method of doing this is to have a couple vendors come in and
make their pitch.  During each pitch you ask them why you shouldn't use the
other guy.  This way you get to hear about the dirty laundry the other guy
doesn't want you to know about.  Your job is deciphering spin from fact.

-Jeff Steward

On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:02 PM, John Aldrich  wrote:

> Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
> educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
> resellers of various SANs, each of them pushing their own vendor that I'm
> really confused. What I really need to find is someone without an axe to
> grind who can help me figure out what my needs are and what storage method
> would best suit my needs.
>
>
>
> From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:44 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: RE: SAN question
>
> Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other
> Jonathan. It’s not that we don’t want to help, we really do, but everyone
> has to do some work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does
> not APPEAR that you have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to
> be able to ask appropriate questions of this list.
>
> Once you’ve met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions
> answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like
> you’re getting the runaround, then ask this list a targeted, specific
> question about a particular feature or function.
>
> At that point, of framed appropriately, I’m willing to bet you’ll get an
> entirely different grade of response which will be useful to you, and
> perhaps others.
>
> Best of luck,
> Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
> Technology Coordinator
> Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
> jra...@eaglemds.com
> www.eaglemds.com
> 
> From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:28 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: SAN question
>
> These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR
> questions.  Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you
> attempted to answer them.
> Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do
> yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your
> own questions.
>
> We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you
> started asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but
> we
> cannot do that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our
> own problems to solve.  If you go back and look at the posts of frequent
> contributors to this list, you'll see requests from people who are in a jam
> and need some instant advice because they're stuck on something, or they
> may
> have gotten turned around in their research and need to trackback and
> confirm their understanding.  These are the types of things a list is good
> at solving.  Filling in gaps in your skill set or educating you on a broad
> technology segment is not.  We are not in elementary school anymore.  We're
> asking you questions, not because we need to know the answers, but because
> you need to ask and answer the questions.  Note: if someone comes back with
> a recommendation on doing something you don't know how to do, it isn't
> really acceptible to say, I don't know how to do X, can you tell me?  I
> would venture to say you should learn to use Google to help fill in your
> gaps.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, John Aldrich
>  wrote:
> To answer your questions in order:
> 1) Failover capability would be very good to have. I need a minimum of two
> controllers so that if one fails, at least we can run on the other until we
> fix the first. That could also be handled by a dual-controller "head" unit.
> So that brings single-node with dumb drive trays back equal with "smart"
> trays.
> 2) Scalability -- I firmly believe that your data WILL eventually grow to
> match available disk space, so I'd like the ability to add space easily.
> That being said, either method will work to add space.
>
> So far, my *MINIMUM* requirements are as follows:
> 1) No single point of failure (Redundant power, redundant controllers,
> RAID,
> redundant Ethernet, etc.)
> 2) Approximately 5 Tb of useable disk space (that should give us a little
> breathing room once we start redirecting critical folders from users'
> desktop machines and add in email)
> 3) RAID 5 minimum to help prevent loss of 

Re: SAN question

[Jeff Steward]

In your environment of <100 users there is nothing *wrong* with having a DC
serve dual duty as a file server and you may have gotten a bigger bang for
your buck at the time.

Performance Monitor is your friend - get a baseline for all of your servers
- memory, cpu and disk metrics -- I'll leave the particulars for your
research ;-)

Once you know where you are today you can make a much more compelling
argument to your CFO about what you need.  Having facts and pretty graphs
that show you are under utilizing existing resources, or straining others is
powerful.  It shows you are being proactive and will serve as a basis for
you to make a plan for what you need to do.

If you haven't done so already, fire up Visio and diagram your existing
infrastructure and your planned infrastructure as well.  This will aid you
in your vendor discussions.

Also, for your size organization and business I would seriously look at
keeping e-mail outside, and maybe even other services as well.  Take a look
at this:  http://www.microsoft.com/online/default.aspx   That is a lot of
bang for the buck.

-Jeff Steward



On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:41 AM, John Aldrich  wrote:

> Yeah... I really should have listened to the local consultant instead of
> listening to Dell, but I made the mistake of listening to Dell when they
> suggested getting a couple large servers to handle everything instead of a
> NAS box and a couple "Pizza box" servers to handle DC roles. Now I'm having
> to go back and do what was recommended in the first place.
>
> Thanks for your input, Richard. I will try and take everyone's advice to
> heart and learn what I can on my own.
>
> 

~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~
~   ~

---
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 Aldrich]

Thanks, Jonathan. I will attempt to do better "due diligence" in getting
educated better about SAN options in general. I've met so many different
resellers of various SANs, each of them pushing their own vendor that I'm
really confused. What I really need to find is someone without an axe to
grind who can help me figure out what my needs are and what storage method
would best suit my needs.



From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:44 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other
Jonathan. It’s not that we don’t want to help, we really do, but everyone
has to do some work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does
not APPEAR that you have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to
be able to ask appropriate questions of this list.

Once you’ve met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions
answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like
you’re getting the runaround, then ask this list a targeted, specific
question about a particular feature or function.

At that point, of framed appropriately, I’m willing to bet you’ll get an
entirely different grade of response which will be useful to you, and
perhaps others.

Best of luck,
Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
Technology Coordinator
Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
jra...@eaglemds.com
www.eaglemds.com 

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR
questions.  Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you
attempted to answer them.  
Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do
yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your
own questions.  
 
We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you
started asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but we
cannot do that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our
own problems to solve.  If you go back and look at the posts of frequent
contributors to this list, you'll see requests from people who are in a jam
and need some instant advice because they're stuck on something, or they may
have gotten turned around in their research and need to trackback and
confirm their understanding.  These are the types of things a list is good
at solving.  Filling in gaps in your skill set or educating you on a broad
technology segment is not.  We are not in elementary school anymore.  We're
asking you questions, not because we need to know the answers, but because
you need to ask and answer the questions.  Note: if someone comes back with
a recommendation on doing something you don't know how to do, it isn't
really acceptible to say, I don't know how to do X, can you tell me?  I
would venture to say you should learn to use Google to help fill in your
gaps.


 
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, John Aldrich
 wrote:
To answer your questions in order:
1) Failover capability would be very good to have. I need a minimum of two
controllers so that if one fails, at least we can run on the other until we
fix the first. That could also be handled by a dual-controller "head" unit.
So that brings single-node with dumb drive trays back equal with "smart"
trays.
2) Scalability -- I firmly believe that your data WILL eventually grow to
match available disk space, so I'd like the ability to add space easily.
That being said, either method will work to add space.

So far, my *MINIMUM* requirements are as follows:
1) No single point of failure (Redundant power, redundant controllers, RAID,
redundant Ethernet, etc.)
2) Approximately 5 Tb of useable disk space (that should give us a little
breathing room once we start redirecting critical folders from users'
desktop machines and add in email)
3) RAID 5 minimum to help prevent loss of data from drive failures.
4) Under $30K
5) Any replication needs to be done on the SAN and not involve software
(such as Backup Exec) on a server.

Anything more than that is gravy.

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

I think we have given you the benefit of our knowledge.
Several times even. 

What requirement do you have that would be met by additional controllers? 
Failover capability?  Scalability?  Again, for like the third time, what are
your requirements, that'll drive your analysis.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:16 AM, John Aldrich
 wrote:
Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to our
on-going search for a SAN manufacturer. I

RE: SAN question

[Raper, Jonathan - Eagle]

Not trying to be rude, John, but I would have to agree with the other Jonathan. 
It's not that we don't want to help, we really do, but everyone has to do some 
work on their own, and (at least on this subject), it does not APPEAR that you 
have done enough homework about this BROAD topic yet to be able to ask 
appropriate questions of this list.

Once you've met with at least 3 vendors, and have gotten your questions 
answered, if you still have a specific question on which you feel like you're 
getting the runaround, then ask this list a targeted, specific question about a 
particular feature or function.

At that point, of framed appropriately, I'm willing to bet you'll get an 
entirely different grade of response which will be useful to you, and perhaps 
others.

Best of luck,

Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
Technology Coordinator
Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
jra...@eaglemds.commailto:%20jra...@eaglemds.com>
www.eaglemds.comhttp://www.eaglemds.com/>


From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR questions.  
Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you attempted to 
answer them.
Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do 
yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your own 
questions.

We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you started 
asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but we cannot do 
that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our own problems 
to solve.  If you go back and look at the posts of frequent contributors to 
this list, you'll see requests from people who are in a jam and need some 
instant advice because they're stuck on something, or they may have gotten 
turned around in their research and need to trackback and confirm their 
understanding.  These are the types of things a list is good at solving.  
Filling in gaps in your skill set or educating you on a broad technology 
segment is not.  We are not in elementary school anymore.  We're asking you 
questions, not because we need to know the answers, but because you need to ask 
and answer the questions.  Note: if someone comes back with a recommendation on 
doing something you don't know how to do, it isn't really acceptible to say, I 
don't know how to do X, can you tell me?  I would venture to say you should 
learn to use Google to help fill in your gaps.



On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, John Aldrich 
mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com>> wrote:
To answer your questions in order:
1) Failover capability would be very good to have. I need a minimum of two
controllers so that if one fails, at least we can run on the other until we
fix the first. That could also be handled by a dual-controller "head" unit.
So that brings single-node with dumb drive trays back equal with "smart"
trays.
2) Scalability -- I firmly believe that your data WILL eventually grow to
match available disk space, so I'd like the ability to add space easily.
That being said, either method will work to add space.

So far, my *MINIMUM* requirements are as follows:
1) No single point of failure (Redundant power, redundant controllers, RAID,
redundant Ethernet, etc.)
2) Approximately 5 Tb of useable disk space (that should give us a little
breathing room once we start redirecting critical folders from users'
desktop machines and add in email)
3) RAID 5 minimum to help prevent loss of data from drive failures.
4) Under $30K
5) Any replication needs to be done on the SAN and not involve software
(such as Backup Exec) on a server.

Anything more than that is gravy.

From: Jonathan Link 
[mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com<mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

I think we have given you the benefit of our knowledge.
Several times even.

What requirement do you have that would be met by additional controllers?
Failover capability?  Scalability?  Again, for like the third time, what are
your requirements, that'll drive your analysis.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:16 AM, John Aldrich
mailto: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-ho

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Yeah... I really should have listened to the local consultant instead of
listening to Dell, but I made the mistake of listening to Dell when they
suggested getting a couple large servers to handle everything instead of a
NAS box and a couple "Pizza box" servers to handle DC roles. Now I'm having
to go back and do what was recommended in the first place.

Thanks for your input, Richard. I will try and take everyone's advice to
heart and learn what I can on my own.



From: richardmccl...@aspca.org [mailto:richardmccl...@aspca.org] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:34 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question


When examining bells and whistles, and since you are intending to move user
files to the unit...  Be sure to get one which offers data de-duplication.
 That can cut storage needs considerably!  (NYC HQ has it; we lust for it!) 

Be sure you understand how each "choice" handles snap-shotting. 

Above all, I'd say getting user files off the DCs is a must!
-- 
Richard D. McClary 
Systems Administrator, Information Technology Group 
ASPCA® 
1717 S. Philo Rd, Ste 36 
Urbana, IL  61802 
  
richardmccl...@aspca.org 
  
P: 217-337-9761 
C: 217-417-1182 
F: 217-337-9761 
www.aspca.org 
  
The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is
from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA®)
and is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may
contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not
the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail,
and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by reply email and
permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout
thereof. 
  

"John Aldrich"  wrote on 09/23/2010 10:12:28
AM:

> I have not measured our file I/O, I don't even know how to do that. If you
> can point me towards some tools I'll do so.
> Current storage on our two servers is about 1/2 terabyte each, with about
> half that full. Currently our only backup is to mirror the two servers
> (domain controllers, etc.) I do not believe that we have sufficient
storage
> to migrate critical folders from everyone's desktops to the server, and we
> are not hosting email in-house. We have about 85-90 users, and knowing how
> no one likes to delete email (particularly sales folks) I expect that we
> will need more storage. According to our ISP's server, we're using about
600
> megs. I know some of our sales reps have complained because I limit their
> mail store to about 50-60 megs. I could probably limit it to 100 megs and
> they'd complain. :-)
> As to the number of "heavy duty" vs Light Duty, I'd guess somewhere around
> 20-30 "heavy" users (mostly sales folks) and the other 2/3 are probably
> 20-30 emails per day users.
> I want to get the storage role off our domain controllers, and possibly
use
> the hardware to run VMWare and convert the DCs to virtual servers as well
as
> running our third "server" machine (Windows 2000 Server hosting our Time
and
> Attendance software) as a virtual machine as well. According to the work
> load, the current DCs (Poweredge 2900 machines with dual quad-core Xeons)
> are just loafing and I'd like to put them to better use. That being said,
I
> can't really do anything with them until such time as I have somewhere to
> put the disk images, etc.
> Email will most likely be Kerio Connect due to the cost constraints and
> needed feature sets. Per Kerio, putting the email store on a SAN *is*
> supported.
> I figure I should have about 5 Terabytes useable storage to do what I
want,
> as well as leave room for growth, snapshots, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:48 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: SAN question
> 
> 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 f

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Ok. Fair enough, Jonathan. I will attempt to find out from Google how to
measure the file IOPS.



From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:28 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR
questions.  Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you
attempted to answer them.  
Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do
yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your
own questions.  
 
We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you
started asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but we
cannot do that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our
own problems to solve.  If you go back and look at the posts of frequent
contributors to this list, you'll see requests from people who are in a jam
and need some instant advice because they're stuck on something, or they may
have gotten turned around in their research and need to trackback and
confirm their understanding.  These are the types of things a list is good
at solving.  Filling in gaps in your skill set or educating you on a broad
technology segment is not.  We are not in elementary school anymore.  We're
asking you questions, not because we need to know the answers, but because
you need to ask and answer the questions.  Note: if someone comes back with
a recommendation on doing something you don't know how to do, it isn't
really acceptible to say, I don't know how to do X, can you tell me?  I
would venture to say you should learn to use Google to help fill in your
gaps.


 
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, John Aldrich
 wrote:
To answer your questions in order:
1) Failover capability would be very good to have. I need a minimum of two
controllers so that if one fails, at least we can run on the other until we
fix the first. That could also be handled by a dual-controller "head" unit.
So that brings single-node with dumb drive trays back equal with "smart"
trays.
2) Scalability -- I firmly believe that your data WILL eventually grow to
match available disk space, so I'd like the ability to add space easily.
That being said, either method will work to add space.

So far, my *MINIMUM* requirements are as follows:
1) No single point of failure (Redundant power, redundant controllers, RAID,
redundant Ethernet, etc.)
2) Approximately 5 Tb of useable disk space (that should give us a little
breathing room once we start redirecting critical folders from users'
desktop machines and add in email)
3) RAID 5 minimum to help prevent loss of data from drive failures.
4) Under $30K
5) Any replication needs to be done on the SAN and not involve software
(such as Backup Exec) on a server.

Anything more than that is gravy.

From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:33 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

I think we have given you the benefit of our knowledge.
Several times even. 

What requirement do you have that would be met by additional controllers? 
Failover capability?  Scalability?  Again, for like the third time, what are
your requirements, that'll drive your analysis.
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:16 AM, John Aldrich
 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: unsubscri

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Nope, haven't looked at Drobo Elite yet. Some fellow "local" geeks suggested
FreeNAS. I'm going to look into that as well.

Thank you all. I will try to get better "edjumakated" about this stuff so I
can ask more intelligent questions in the future.



From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:16 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: Re: SAN question

+1
Going back to a previous comment of mine in another thread you started. 
Have you messed with OpenFiler, yet?  You'll learn a lot.
Also, based on your pretty low requirements, have you looked at the
DroboElite? If it had been available when I started looking, I very well
could've gone in this direction.  As it is, I'm seriously considering it for
backup duty.  Storage for a backup server, and the ability to use it in a
pinch if my EqualLogic goes down.


~ 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

[RichardMcClary]

When examining bells and whistles, and since you are intending to move 
user files to the unit...  Be sure to get one which offers data 
de-duplication.  That can cut storage needs considerably!  (NYC HQ has it; 
we lust for it!)

Be sure you understand how each "choice" handles snap-shotting.

Above all, I'd say getting user files off the DCs is a must!
--
Richard D. McClary
Systems Administrator, Information Technology Group 
ASPCA®
1717 S. Philo Rd, Ste 36
Urbana, IL  61802
 
richardmccl...@aspca.org
 
P: 217-337-9761
C: 217-417-1182
F: 217-337-9761
www.aspca.org
 
The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is 
from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA
®) and is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may 
contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not 
the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this 
e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have 
received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by reply email 
and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any 
printout thereof.
 

"John Aldrich"  wrote on 09/23/2010 10:12:28 
AM:

> I have not measured our file I/O, I don't even know how to do that. If 
you
> can point me towards some tools I'll do so.
> Current storage on our two servers is about 1/2 terabyte each, with 
about
> half that full. Currently our only backup is to mirror the two servers
> (domain controllers, etc.) I do not believe that we have sufficient 
storage
> to migrate critical folders from everyone's desktops to the server, and 
we
> are not hosting email in-house. We have about 85-90 users, and knowing 
how
> no one likes to delete email (particularly sales folks) I expect that we
> will need more storage. According to our ISP's server, we're using about 
600
> megs. I know some of our sales reps have complained because I limit 
their
> mail store to about 50-60 megs. I could probably limit it to 100 megs 
and
> they'd complain. :-)
> As to the number of "heavy duty" vs Light Duty, I'd guess somewhere 
around
> 20-30 "heavy" users (mostly sales folks) and the other 2/3 are probably
> 20-30 emails per day users.
> I want to get the storage role off our domain controllers, and possibly 
use
> the hardware to run VMWare and convert the DCs to virtual servers as 
well as
> running our third "server" machine (Windows 2000 Server hosting our Time 
and
> Attendance software) as a virtual machine as well. According to the work
> load, the current DCs (Poweredge 2900 machines with dual quad-core 
Xeons)
> are just loafing and I'd like to put them to better use. That being 
said, I
> can't really do anything with them until such time as I have somewhere 
to
> put the disk images, etc.
> Email will most likely be Kerio Connect due to the cost constraints and
> needed feature sets. Per Kerio, putting the email store on a SAN *is*
> supported.
> I figure I should have about 5 Terabytes useable storage to do what I 
want,
> as well as leave room for growth, snapshots, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Jeff Steward [mailto:jstew...@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:48 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: SAN question
> 
> 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
>  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'

Re: SAN question

[Jonathan Link]

These aren't my questions, per se, so much as they need to be YOUR
questions.  Jeff Steward also gave you a long list of questions, and you
attempted to answer them.
Here's the thing, this list is not a substitute for the work you need to do
yourself.  You need to identify your needs, you need to ask and answer your
own questions.

We, the list members, have been pushing you in this direction since you
started asking around.  You're asking us to do your thinking for you, but we
cannot do that, we are not in your position and, quite frankly, we have our
own problems to solve.  If you go back and look at the posts of frequent
contributors to this list, you'll see requests from people who are in a jam
and need some instant advice because they're stuck on something, or they may
have gotten turned around in their research and need to trackback and
confirm their understanding.  These are the types of things a list is good
at solving.  Filling in gaps in your skill set or educating you on a broad
technology segment is not.  We are not in elementary school anymore.  We're
asking you questions, not because we need to know the answers, but because
you need to ask and answer the questions.  Note: if someone comes back with
a recommendation on doing something you don't know how to do, it isn't
really acceptible to say, I don't know how to do X, can you tell me?  I
would venture to say you should learn to use Google to help fill in your
gaps.



On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:58 AM, John Aldrich  wrote:

> To answer your questions in order:
> 1) Failover capability would be very good to have. I need a minimum of two
> controllers so that if one fails, at least we can run on the other until we
> fix the first. That could also be handled by a dual-controller "head" unit.
> So that brings single-node with dumb drive trays back equal with "smart"
> trays.
> 2) Scalability -- I firmly believe that your data WILL eventually grow to
> match available disk space, so I'd like the ability to add space easily.
> That being said, either method will work to add space.
>
> So far, my *MINIMUM* requirements are as follows:
> 1) No single point of failure (Redundant power, redundant controllers,
> RAID,
> redundant Ethernet, etc.)
> 2) Approximately 5 Tb of useable disk space (that should give us a little
> breathing room once we start redirecting critical folders from users'
> desktop machines and add in email)
> 3) RAID 5 minimum to help prevent loss of data from drive failures.
> 4) Under $30K
> 5) Any replication needs to be done on the SAN and not involve software
> (such as Backup Exec) on a server.
>
> Anything more than that is gravy.
>
> From: Jonathan Link [mailto:jonathan.l...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:33 AM
> To: NT System Admin Issues
> Subject: Re: SAN question
>
> I think we have given you the benefit of our knowledge.
> Several times even.
>
> What requirement do you have that would be met by additional controllers?
> Failover capability?  Scalability?  Again, for like the third time, what
> are
> your requirements, that'll drive your analysis.
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:16 AM, John Aldrich
>  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

RE: SAN question

[John Aldrich]

Jonathan, thank you for your *serious* reply. I see your point. I will try
to sit down with various engineers, even if it's only over the phone, to
talk with them and find out what their products are all about and why they
would be better than some other competitor. :-)




-Original Message-
From: Raper, Jonathan - Eagle [mailto:jra...@eaglemds.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 11:00 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

John - I do not believe that we can help you significantly with this
question. In the end, it really doesn't matter what any of us think, because
our environments are all different and unique. What works well and may be
appropriate for any of us, may be a horrible fit for you and cause you
nothing but heartburn and stress.

However, I would tend to agree with Niles. If you're not ready for a SAN,
don't spend the money on it now.

You really need to have a serious sit-down with the vendors/sales engineers
(notice I said ENGINEER, not REP) of the different hardware, learn as much
as you can from THEM, and ask LOTS of questions. Then ask them why you
should choose their product over x, y, or z product. Take lots of notes, and
then do the same thing all over again, no more than a few days apart so
everything is still fresh in your head.

Many times, some of the best education I've gotten has been from the
manufacturers themselves. I've actually been to the EMC manufacturing
facility in North Carolina - I spent two days there, on THEIR DIME to learn
about their products (I had to get there & back, but after that, everything
was on them). If you say to them, "I'd like an education on how your product
works and whether or not it would be suitable for my needs and my
applications.", you'll generally get plenty of intelligent people that will
be happy to answer your questions. If they don't ask lots of questions about
your environment and what your needs are, you're talking to the wrong
people.

I believe that the purpose of this list is really a, "I'm having trouble
with x, has anyone seen this before?" or "why do you guys think x
specification/technology is better than y", or "I'm having trouble getting
this ADSIedit script working, what am I doing wrong?".

I believe that if you sit down with the various manufacturers/reps, even if
only on a webex session where they can whiteboard for you one on one, will
answer many of your questions and make your original question about
intelligence/disks seem trivial.

Regards,

Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE
Technology Coordinator
Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA
jra...@eaglemds.com
www.eaglemds.com


-Original Message-
From: N Parr [mailto:npar...@mortonind.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:26 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: RE: SAN question

I think you just need to give up on your SAN dreams and go buy a decent
NAS for a couple grand and call it good.  You just said it's going to be
a file server for the time being so why spend the money for a SAN now if
you don't need it.  I bet if I look back through the archives you first
brought this up at least 18 months ago.  When, if , you do need a SAN
down the road you won't have already spent a ton of $$ on what will then
be old tech and you can start looking at what will then be new.

-Original Message-
From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 9:17 AM
To: NT System Admin Issues
Subject: SAN question

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/>  ~

-