Backup File Server to DAS
-
@scottalanmiller what do you mean by ransonware ?? and how can i protect my data against them ??
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
@scottalanmiller what do you mean by ransonware ?? and how can i protect my data against them ??
Ransomware like CryptoLocker, that we've been mentioning since the top of the thread. The best way to protect against it is to have completely offline backups that the computer can never can access once the backup is taken. An air gapped backup system like Unitrends or StorageCraft is ideal there. And even better is to go to tape.
For you, going with third party backup software, NAS and not using mapped drives is going to have to be good enough. Any DAS or SAN is going to completely expose you. NAS that is mapped will almost completely expose you. NAS that is not mapped will be pretty good.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Local disks, DAS and SAN are all block devices. This is actually what you are asking about. It is not local versus non-local, it is block (SAS, SATA, eSATA, IEEE1394, USB, FC, iSCSI, zSAN, ATAoE, etc.) versus **block **(NFS, SMB, AFP, AFS, FTP, HTTP, etc.)
i guess this is a typo Mr Scott, right ?? it must be **file **
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Local disks, DAS and SAN are all block devices. This is actually what you are asking about. It is not local versus non-local, it is block (SAS, SATA, eSATA, IEEE1394, USB, FC, iSCSI, zSAN, ATAoE, etc.) versus **block **(NFS, SMB, AFP, AFS, FTP, HTTP, etc.)
i guess this is a typo Mr Scott, right ?? it must be **file **
You are correct, that was a typo. Writing while standing in the sun means that I cannot read my own screen
-
@Dashrender said:
To get what you want, you will have to use a DAS or a SAN. The only difference between DAS and SAN are the protocol you use to talk to the device. i.e. DAS = SATA or SCSI communciation, SAN = iSCSI or other block protocol.
Actually you can make a DAS or a SAN out of any of those protocols. There are ones more commonly used for DAS and some more commonly used for SAN but nothing about the protocols makes one one thing and one the other. You can do switched SAS or USB, you can do direct attached FC or iSCSI. Literally it is all in how you use it.
Technically the device isn't a DAS or a SAN, just a storage array. If you hook it up directly you have DAS. If you hook it up over a network the network itself is called a SAN.
-
There, I fixed the typo up above.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
To get what you want, you will have to use a DAS or a SAN. The only difference between DAS and SAN are the protocol you use to talk to the device. i.e. DAS = SATA or SCSI communciation, SAN = iSCSI or other block protocol.
Actually you can make a DAS or a SAN out of any of those protocols. There are ones more commonly used for DAS and some more commonly used for SAN but nothing about the protocols makes one one thing and one the other. You can do switched SAS or USB, you can do direct attached FC or iSCSI. Literally it is all in how you use it.
Technically the device isn't a DAS or a SAN, just a storage array. If you hook it up directly you have DAS. If you hook it up over a network the network itself is called a SAN.
Aww.. yeah, of course. Thanks for the clarification.
-
Fibre Channel is the "giveaway" protocol here. It is used widely for all three tasks: internal drives, DAS and SAN. One single protocol used universally. All of the conventions that tell us what it would be break down.
-
now i looking for prices and i found that SAN is the expensive one
Performance vs. cost: SANs are typically higher performance than NAS devices, but cost more. Since SANs usually use Fibre Channel, they are able to operate substantially faster than a shared Internet Protocol (IP) networks. Fibre Channel operates at 8 gigabit and higher speeds as compared to existing IP networks which often run at 1 gigabit or less. -
can you tell me the range of prices of both (SAN and NAS) ??
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
now i looking for prices and i found that SAN is the expensive one
Performance vs. cost: SANs are typically higher performance than NAS devices, but cost more. Since SANs usually use Fibre Channel, they are able to operate substantially faster than a shared Internet Protocol (IP) networks. Fibre Channel operates at 8 gigabit and higher speeds as compared to existing IP networks which often run at 1 gigabit or less.What is your source for this bad information? This is just silly. Sure FC is often 8Gb/s or faster. But you can get NAS at 100Gb/s if you want. Yes, I said 100Gb/s.
What IP network do you know that runs LESS THAN 1Gb/s? Clearly this information is biased and unreliable. Even home networks over a decade ago were not that slow.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
can you tell me the range of prices of both (SAN and NAS) ??
I bought my first SAN for $99 (Netgear consumer.) The cheapest combined SAN and NAS that I've bought is $279 (Netgear ReadyNAS.)
These days not so many companies making good commercial gear below $300, but in the $400 range you can get something from most any good vendor. Netgear and Synology are your main vendors here. Buffalo, QNAP, Thecus are the other big players.
-
-
Technically, if you really want to get pedantic, SAN can be cheaper than NAS because a SAN is so simple. Any external hard drive can be a SAN with the ride cables. But that's getting well into the "silly" category.
No one is making a serious SAN or NAS device that is not at a certain level and once you get to that level, they are the same prices and almost always the same physical devices.
-
ReadyNAS 312 for $420 on Amazon.
-
Ok thank you very much, i have to leave now and see you soon
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
Where are you finding these things? One of the most critical skills in IT is understanding how to identify a credible source. Souces like MangoLassi's community, Spiceworks community, SMBITJournal, etc. are peer reviewed and are written by "known" people. You know the history of the person posting and you can see people verifying them, correcting them, explaining etc.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
Performance vs. cost: SANs are typically higher performance than NAS devices, but cost more. Since SANs usually use Fibre Channel, they are able to operate substantially faster than a shared Internet Protocol (IP) networks. Fibre Channel operates at 8 gigabit and higher speeds as compared to existing IP networks which often run at 1 gigabit or less.
Let's look at how to read this:
- They are talking about typical. Meaning what people often buy, not something about SAN or NAS. So this is useless information. Yes, people often spend more on their SAN than on their NAS. But this tells us nothing about SAN or NAS, just about how people are spending their money.
- They point out that people typically buy FC for SAN. This is likely true, but tells us something about the assumptions. They are basing their information on what typically buy, not on SAN or NAS itself. What do you care about what people "normally buy"? You were here to learn about SAN, not to learn about buying habits, right? You are reading about buying habits and thinking that it is telling you about SAN.
- FC can run at 8Gb/s. It can also run much slower. This statement is obviously wrong and quite misleading. Most SMBs with FC are not this fast.
- IP networks generally run at 1Gb/s or faster, not less. This information is just completely wrong. 1Gb/s and 10Gb/s are the standard speeds for the last many years (since around the same time that 8Gb/s FC became popular) for IP networks for raw links and no one would be running a SAN with only one link, so common speeds are actually 2Gb/s, 8Gb/s and 20Gb/s.
Partly the article is just wrong. Partly it is just being read incorrectly and not telling you what you think that it is telling you.
-
Here is the Synology DS214 on Amazon for just $299.
-
It should be noted thta Crashplan is an AWESOME file-level backup utility. It will not, however, restore a dead server or VM from scratch.
I would recommend a NAS (see other posts in this topic for recommendations)... and then using a backup utility from Veeam, Unitrends, StorageCraft (ShadowProtect), etc, etc... This way you can retain the file-level recovery via crash plan, and the blank slate recovery via a full-system backup utility.
