Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?
-
Ah it's here.
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
How are you determining the amount of storage that will be needed?
I've been given the target by another team, so that is out of my hands. The rest of the company use B&R, but they do not plan on introducing this to UK side until 2019 (sometime in 2020). So we have been told to use up to 15k to get ourselves backed up until then using the Veeam Agent Free Edition, then in 2020 we will be incorporated. Out of my hands, but is what it is.
Makes sense with what you say about the backup server and the storage behind that server/attached to the backup server. But thats not where we are here until 2020.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
Better than Zmanda? Definitely.
Nothing to miss, we never discuss it.
I mean, Veeam free being a requirement.
Yes, you must have missed it. Veeam AGENT Free is a requirement.
My takeaway was that the free agent was the proposed solution, not necessarily a requirement....
.... going back to the "planning" that got us here, either I'm underestimating the capabilities of the 2020 introduction of a veeam server or someone thinks that they'll be able to fire up a server in a year's time and point it at the existing backups and say "these are yours to manage now".... which seriously defeats the point of putting something like a "real" veeam server in play that takes backups at the hypervisor level even if it can ingest the existing data and take over managing the backups.... "Planning" along these lines is the only reason I can think of the veeam agent being a hard requirement
... OK you found the required part while I was typing this up
-
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
My takeaway was that the free agent was the proposed solution, not necessarily a requirement....
Maybe, but that's not how it was stated.
-
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
"Planning" along these lines is the only reason I can think of the veeam agent being a hard requirement
NONE of this is based on planning, at all. This is 100% politics and the OP has no say in it. It is a non-technical mandate from powers on high that are not considering any business need or ramifications.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
"Planning" along these lines is the only reason I can think of the veeam agent being a hard requirement
NONE of this is based on planning, at all. This is 100% politics and the OP has no say in it. It is a non-technical mandate from powers on high that are not considering any business need or ramifications.
Agree 100%... The road to hell is paved with good intentions; wanting backups is never a bad thing, trying to do them like this is just asking for trouble.
-
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
"Planning" along these lines is the only reason I can think of the veeam agent being a hard requirement
NONE of this is based on planning, at all. This is 100% politics and the OP has no say in it. It is a non-technical mandate from powers on high that are not considering any business need or ramifications.
Agree 100%... The road to hell is paved with good intentions; wanting backups is never a bad thing, trying to do them like this is just asking for trouble.
Not sure that this is good intentions. My guess is departmental fighting over a budget. But who knows.
-
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but i noticed someone mention Off Site Cloud Storage, thats a good option but depending on the data change rate he will need to consider upload speeds on the connection.
In the UK some of our sites only have 3MB Down and 1MB up
so uploading anything would take a months -
@hobbit666 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but i noticed someone mention Off Site Cloud Storage, thats a good option but depending on the data change rate he will need to consider upload speeds on the connection.
We ran the numbers, it's both not an option due to their tech requirements, but the cost would be way too high. The annual storage would be as much as their capital limits. Even on Wasabi.
-
@hobbit666 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
In the UK some of our sites only have 3MB Down and 1MB up so uploading anything would take a months
That's the speeds I'm getting on AT&T commercial, dedicated, enterprise 50/50 fiber!
-
@scottalanmiller thought i would mention as it's happened here.
"Lets upload to the cloud" Hold on with the amount and speeds we would be constantly uploading file 24/7 -
@hobbit666 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller thought i would mention as it's happened here.
"Lets upload to the cloud" Hold on with the amount and speeds we would be constantly uploading file 24/7Yeah, that's a huge issue, too. 170TB even over a 50Mb/s dedicated line isn't fast
-
I've got a symmetric gig connection in the new office. We could probably make that work.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I've got a symmetric gig connection in the new office. We could probably make that work.
I have symmetrical 50Mb/s, but I only reliably get 3Mb/s
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@hobbit666 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller thought i would mention as it's happened here.
"Lets upload to the cloud" Hold on with the amount and speeds we would be constantly uploading file 24/7Yeah, that's a huge issue, too. 170TB even over a 50Mb/s dedicated line isn't fast
With that kind of data, it's best to have your data cloud only IMO. Then scaling and backup is easier and likely more cost efficient.
Depends on the data of course!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I've got a symmetric gig connection in the new office. We could probably make that work.
I have symmetrical 50Mb/s, but I only reliably get 3Mb/s
Nice to know I am not alone. I can get to 100Mb/s for 3 times the price I pay now. Yeah, right!
-
We run with RAID 6.
Modern RAID controllers have the horsepower and cache RAM that is flash backed to overcome any real parity performance costs.
Rebuild times will be the killer plus some performance cost for a failed disk.
-
@PhlipElder said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Modern RAID controllers have the horsepower and cache RAM that is flash backed to overcome any real parity performance costs.
Operationally it would be just fine. It's only recovery time that would be of concern.
