Storage question
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
the synology as internal backup
As for back up, you could get a less expensive NAS to keep a backup of your main data. Plus some super cheap S3 storage would do as a cold archive in addition to a cheap backup NAS.
-
Your growth is my only concern. I'd consider a 4 bay NAS with two 8 TB drives, then you can expand that to four total 8 TB drives when you get full (though I suppose that might require a backup and restore of the data).
I agree - no AD today - why do you need it?
Because you are using Dropbox today, NextCloud with the sync client might be good for you. Though the sync client does open you to crypto malware attacks.
As for backups - Two of these boxes, one syncing to the other, and then syncing to Amazon Glacier would probably do you just perfect.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least
It's been a year since your last post.Thx!
yeah, i know; its been while
@DustinB3403 said in Storage question:
Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?
whats terrestrial based backup ?
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what has been proposed :
A windows AD server (only for authentication)
6TB usable storage
Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disksWhy Windows AD?
First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
Second... why Windows AD?AD was Demanded by the CTO...
i thought it was good to use the windows server as file server and back it up to the synologywe will go for an expandable synology rs station.
if the need is there we can put in an extra chassis. 4x4 TB in raid10will suggest an extra locallly backup target.
thanks for the advice.
-
@elegast terrestrial means that it runs on a telephone pole or underground, non-terrestrial means that it would be running over over radio signal or over satellite or point to point service.
-
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
I understand that running it locally has a speed advantage for internal users.
But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow side° -
@elegast said in Storage question:
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.
-
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.
in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.
in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?
Essentially yes. It's a self hosted version of those services. Business wise it can make sense if the user agreements for those services are not acceptable.
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow side°
But not nearly as slow as using a Windows file server over VPN for remote users. It works much better for that.
-
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
@travisdh1 said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.
in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?
Essentially yes. It's a self hosted version of those services. Business wise it can make sense if the user agreements for those services are not acceptable.
And it is free, and gets the speed of local bandwidth when working on the LAN.
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least
It's been a year since your last post.Thx!
yeah, i know; its been while@DustinB3403 said in Storage question:
Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?
whats terrestrial based backup ?
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what has been proposed :
A windows AD server (only for authentication)
6TB usable storage
Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disksWhy Windows AD?
First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
Second... why Windows AD?AD was Demanded by the CTO...
Seems an odd person to be demanding infrastructure design. Why does the engineering department get any kind of say like that in IT?
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
i thought it was good to use the windows server as file server and back it up to the synology
It might be, but from the sound of it, probably not. Windows Fileservers certainly have a place, but you are coming from a situation where one doesn't exist and that would eliminate most deployments (same for AD, rolling out these kinds of services new in this day and age should be met with a critical eye - both have their place but in a small shop without that technical debt already in place, I'd be extremely cautious about making such a deep, long term commitment to that cost.)
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least
It's been a year since your last post.Thx!
yeah, i know; its been while@DustinB3403 said in Storage question:
Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?
whats terrestrial based backup ?
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
@elegast said in Storage question:
what has been proposed :
A windows AD server (only for authentication)
6TB usable storage
Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disksWhy Windows AD?
First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
Second... why Windows AD?AD was Demanded by the CTO...
Seems an odd person to be demanding infrastructure design. Why does the engineering department get any kind of say like that in IT?
Not in a company that doesn't have a CIO. Not sure if that's the case here, but seems pretty likely.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
-
@elegast said in Storage question:
But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow side°
Your remote workers will have this issues regardless of NextCloud, DropBox, or GoogleDrive. If their internet connection is slow, then their performance across all of these services will be slow.
-
Does NextCloud not have a sync client which sits on the client? @Dashrender
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Except this ignores the alternative access that NextCloud, Sharepoint, Alfresco, etc gives you that you don't have with Windows File Servers.
WebDAV is already setup by default in NextCloud, they have a client based sync client, you can set it up for versioning and version control so that things like ransomware is less of a threat.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
-
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
-
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@JaredBusch said in Storage question:
@Dashrender said in Storage question:
@scottalanmiller said in Storage question:
Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?
As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.
If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.
But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.
Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.
Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.
Not sure how that is ignoring.
That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.
Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.
