Re: suggestions on network storage
- From: Leythos <void@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 08:15:44 -0400
In article <48959b18@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
geoffx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...
I knew someone would jump in :-)
"spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx" <spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1217769314_245518@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
BAD MOVE, RAID is needed in ANY setup that can not afford 8-12 hours
downtime when they don't have an on-site IT person.
Well this kind of depends on whether or not you have a backup domain
controller. In any event, the crash of a HDD is extremely rare.
Extremely. My advice for the financially challenged is to build their
initial install, ghost it, add the users and mailboxes, ghost that. And
there you have it. Raid is thoroughly unnecessary. But yes, if you can
afford it (and it isn't expensive these days) then go for it!
No, it depends on your business being able to eat the down-time for a
rebuild.
Ghost requires some place to store the images, so, if you're going to
have another PC with that much storage space then you already can afford
RAID.
"Adequate backup", so, even if you run a backup nightly, if the single
drive fails around 3PM of the typical work day, all of those people just
lost a days work, and while you might be able to rebuild the server in a
Now this is rubbish. It obviously means you don't have a proper backup
arrangement. We do weekly full backups, daily differential and hourly
log backups. We can restore to any hour. Users mail boxes are already
backed up to the users machines of course and because we use SharePoint
to store all documents, these too are being backed up the same way.
Nice.
You do understand that this is a SBS group, right?
SBS does not do incremental backups, it does FULL backups, 1 time per
day. If you want to do incremental backups then you have to do it
without the SBS wizards and/or use third-party software.
As for hourly backups of logs, yes, you can do that too, but it's not
built into SBS, and this is a SBS group talking about SBS solutions.
So, if you've got this non-standard SBS solution running, the server
takes a total dump, how long does it take you to get them back online
and working without any loss of data? I'm willing to bet that the cost
of a RAID array is vastly cheaper. Even a lowly on-board RAID controller
with multiple drives (say 4 to 6) is cheaper than a single instance of
you having to rebuild the server 1 time.
I've seen people tell companies "You need version xyz because it offers
abc and you can't do without abc" and you know what, many companies
What's your point? You don't like 2008? I am suggesting the guy review
2008 because he is at the point of seeking hardware upgrades. It would
be a nice time to also upgrade the OS...
No, but I got the point that you're telling him he "Needs" 2008 because
it will make his business more efficient, and none of us can tell him
that based on his provided information.
I don't know what country you work in, but I have workstations that are
10 yers old that work just fine, I have servers that have the same parts
they had 10 years ago, that work just fine.
Australia. But aren't you the cheap skate :-)
Seriously, change your hardware, you don't know what you're missing.
You, again, mistake one part of a message for a lot more than it is. I
have 8 servers in my office here, all of them are less than 2 years old,
all of them are running multiple arrays, etc... To say that I have old
hardware that still works is just a factual example of what ELSE I have
around here.
As for missing something - With a Quad Quad Core box, 32GB RAM, etc...
I'm not missing much, but, this is a SBS group, so there is no point in
talking about Quad Quad boxes.
In 30 years of working with computers I've had RAM fail exactly 1 time,
and that was also part of a power hit that took out the PSU and
Motherboard.
Excellent! You're a lucky man. Buy a lottery ticket quickly.
Drives do fail, I've just had a new customer with an IBM 226 series
server where 4 of 6 drives failed over a 1 week period, but their other
Well it seems you need to get your HDDs from the same place you buy your
RAM. Honestly, you're making a case to suit your experience. You under
compensate some areas and over compensate others. I am simply offering
an alternate view - this is not a religious argument.
No, you're right, you are offering an "Alternative view", but I'm not
"under compensating" anything. Your suggestion flys in the face of good
business practices that have been proven reliable for decades by most of
the world.
My experience is reasonably vast, and it covers decades of working on
these types of things, and it also covers knowing how to build reliable
solutions for the least amount of down-time and the fastest DR solutions
based on the customers specific needs.
Power-Supply failures? Other than a FAN being full of dust, it's very
unlikely and again, spare sitting on the shelf, $80 just waiting, and
you have that resolved in 15 minutes.
In our part of the world they are the most common component to fail.
They are also relatively easy to replace and then there are just the
data corruptions to contend with.
Maybe you need to buy quality parts to start with? Maybe your AC Power
has a lot of noise or other issues?
doomed to die soon no matter what." is FUD, there is no way to know. I
Not FUD, fact <g>. Its called preventative maintenance.
LOL, Preventive maintenance is when you REPLACE IT BEFORE IT FAILS, not
after it fails :)
Really, got one client with over 200 workstation (not a SBS shop),
running 24/7, taking orders for drugs all 24 hours. In the 3 years that
most of those PC's have been running we've replaced 1 power supply and 3
video cards - and the video cards were replaced because the FAN's
failed, the PSU was replaced because the fan was making noise.
I can show about 80 other client cases like this all over the US, sorry,
no work in Oz for us.
Yes, a new server would be nice, so would 2008, but if the old server
can handle a couple new drives, if the PSU shows no signs of going bad
So I am thus not sure what your real message is. Buy RAID and nothing
else? Well ok, spit out then but I don't think this is good advice. The
current quad core CPUs on DDR3 RAM give exceptional performance and
along with 2008, is really worth looking at. It sounds like you should
give such things a try also.
You mistake your impression of what I have experience with.
RAID is for the server itself, at least the OS array, and it's not
optional in my view (as well as most any IT person's view that supports
systems that run business).
Having 2008 will not benefit MOST businesses that use 2008 currently,
it's got a lot of nice features, but it's not going to dramatically
change their way of doing business, not going to be a significant ROI,
it's just going to be another migration and training session they have
to go through and wonder why, when the old system worked fine, they had
to do this.....
RAID is the proper solution for a SBS solution, you want at LEASE a
single RAID array with at least 1 partition for your OS/Data, with more
arrays being a better option for performance.
On a busy 70 user SBS box, a MIRROR for the OS, and a RAID 5 with 4-6
drives for user data, and another small RAID-5 for Exchange or SQL would
be fine on a small server with Dual Dual Core or Dual Quad Core, but the
key is that RAID means you won't be down if any single drive fails in
the arrays. You can also install the replacement and keep on working
while it rebuilds in all but the cheapest of raid controllers.
--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@xxxxxxxxxx (remove 999 for proper email address)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: suggestions on network storage
- From: Geoff Schaller
- Re: suggestions on network storage
- References:
- Re: suggestions on network storage
- From: Leythos
- Re: suggestions on network storage
- From: Geoff Schaller
- Re: suggestions on network storage
- Prev by Date: Re: suggestions on network storage
- Next by Date: Re: Forward Email to External Address -- Temporarily
- Previous by thread: Re: suggestions on network storage
- Next by thread: Re: suggestions on network storage
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
