Network restructuring advice
-
@Dashrender said:
What is currently running on the R730? Is there enough processing power to run all work loads of the two PCs and whatever is currently on the R730, on the 730?
What are you thinking about for backups? Once you're completely virtualized you could use Veeam, or you could look at getting a Unitrends box (though be prepared for several thousand dollar bill on that one). It doesn't appear that you can use the Drobo as a backup target, as you mentioned it's already being used for live data.
You could look into purchasing a used Dell with spinning drives(unless you have budget/performance need for SSDs), virtualize the two PCs onto it.
The 730 is new, the began migrating some of the VMs from the HP Proliant onto it.
I intended to move everything from the Drobo onto the R730 and use the Drobo as backup storage -
@scottalanmiller said:
@whizzard said:
The Drobo is a B800i with 12TB (10.91TB actual) 5.42TB usable, the other for "protection"
All Drobo are limited to RAID 5 or RAID 6, that's all that they do.
The B800i is a rack mounted SAN (I have one myself), it cannot be used as a file share. How exactly is it being used? A SAN is not a file server.
It's connected to the HP Proliant as an additional drive and shared via one of the VMs
-
@whizzard said:
I intended to move everything from the Drobo onto the R730 and use the Drobo as backup storage
How will you be doing this? Are you building a SAN VM on the R730?
-
@whizzard said:
It's connected to the HP Proliant as an additional drive and shared via one of the VMs
Oh that's HORRIBLE. But it means you can drop it completely, it has no function. It's actually doing nothing but adding risk and bottlenecks right now. Just move it into a VHD and you are done.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@whizzard said:
That is what I am considering at the moment, the problem is the current setup already has the data stored on the Drobo, so while it's already there, it isn't a backup as it's where the data actively resides.
That's going to be very tough. And backing up a SAN is dramatically harder than backing up other storage types as you cannot back it up directly but only through the systems that are attached to it. You can't simply buy another B800i and replicate or get backup software that can back it up. It takes a lot more resources and effort to back up.
The first step, I think, would be prepping the R730 for use for "everything" and migrating that huge B800i workload over to it ASAP. Once that is done, repurpose the B800i as the backup target ASAP.
If the capacity of the B800i is not enough to handle all of the backups once there are versions and whatnot, you can get bigger drives for it to handle that. Or if necessary, a second B800i is not a massive investment.
I like that idea
-
Here us an illustration of what I'm currently working with.
-
You are running email in house? I'd get a meeting together to discuss making that hosted as a first step. That could be something that you don't have to deal with at all.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You are running email in house? I'd get a meeting together to discuss making that hosted as a first step. That could be something that you don't have to deal with at all.
I mentioned that to them already just to get a feel of where they stand, so far they seem somewhat paranoid about it, but I don't think it's something I can't convince them to move.
-
@whizzard said:
I mentioned that to them already just to get a feel of where they stand, so far they seem somewhat paranoid about it, but I don't think it's something I can't convince them to move.
Like most things, if they feel paranoid it is because they don't understand. All of the things that they told you they want should rule them out running their own email. Security, stability, uptime, protection... those don't go with in house email. Remind them that security and uptime don't mix with hubris or reckless "throwing darts" decision making.
If they want IT to make good decisions, management can't just make uninformed technical decisions. Ask them why they feel that as non-IT they would have any input into whether it is hosted or not? If they are making the call to be insecure and risky, why do they tell you to do the opposite. Make them explain their irrationality.
-
@whizzard said:
....but I don't think it's something I can't convince them to move.
Don't convince them to move, explain to them that they've already mandated to you to do so as part of the requirements already given.
-
I personally use Google Apps, many recommend Office 365, but having seen some global downtime with them, I am a bit apprehensive. Also know Rackspace has some options as well. But so far other than the limited features of the outdated Zimbra, the email hasn't required much yet. So with a backup host in a co-location site and better email server software, will it still be better to move to hosted emails?
-
@whizzard said:
I personally use Google Apps, many recommend Office 365, but having seen some global downtime with them, I am a bit apprehensive.
Define downtime and risk. How much downtime have you seen? How much downtime do you fear? How many incoming emails (down to customers) happened? How much data loss? How much impact was there?
Now look at internal email. Try to assess the same risks there. You can't make internal email as reliable as these services without spending a fortune and even then, it is unlikely. You can get lucky for large periods of time, but overall, the downtime is going to be higher. And different, it requires IT scrambling, no resources to deal with other issues and no infrastructure for failover.
Honestly, a little email downtime is pretty minor when email handling is still working. Security and data protection are the big issues and you can't remotely touch those self hosting.
-
@whizzard said:
So with a backup host in a co-location site and better email server software, will it still be better to move to hosted emails?
Unless you have a regulatory reason or a massive network problem keeping you from going hosted, I know of no reliability, security or data protection reason that would make you run in house under any circumstances. Email is a commodity service that cannot be run in house as effectively as it can be hosted. Using IT resources to run email is no different than using them to run a web server. It's wasteful and inefficient. There is no competitive advantage in running email in house.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@whizzard said:
So with a backup host in a co-location site and better email server software, will it still be better to move to hosted emails?
Unless you have a regulatory reason or a massive network problem keeping you from going hosted, I know of no reliability, security or data protection reason that would make you run in house under any circumstances. Email is a commodity service that cannot be run in house as effectively as it can be hosted. Using IT resources to run email is no different than using them to run a web server. It's wasteful and inefficient. There is no competitive advantage in running email in house.
Understood
-
@whizzard said:
So with a backup host in a co-location site and better email server software....
What's better than Zimbra?
-
I would rebuild that CentOS 5 machine from scratch while doing this. Don't migrate it. Time to be on CentOS 7.
-
CentOS 5 is roughly like being on Windows Server 2003 R2.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@whizzard said:
So with a backup host in a co-location site and better email server software....
What's better than Zimbra?
MDaemon?
-
@whizzard said:
MDaemon?
Not a bad product and really nice guys, we know them well (we hang out in their offices and go drinking with them.) But it's a small, SMB focused Windows app not on the same level as Zimbra. MDaemon makes a ton of sense for people needing to run email in house who can't manage Linux machines and are stuck on Windows and don't need the complexity of Exchange. But you'd be moving from top end enterprise to SMB focused and from free to not free. You'd be moving away from "makes sense to run in house" in every way.
-
Zimbra, for example, has full HA built in.
