Client system overhaul
-
The plan is to use the hardware they have, no replacements.
I don't recall what type of NASs they were, but it was mentioned that they could possibly self sync, so PSX's solution might be the play for offsites.
-
So the client doesn't want to spend on hardware, but is willing to spend on software to use the equipment they have; to implement an onsite/offsite backup solution.
Correct?
Are Disks even on the table to be purchased?
-
I've updated the first post a bit.
My associate said that they are sure there are enough resources to load up an additional VM and give is approx 40 GB of storage on the host. As for the 1 VCPU and 4 GB RAM, I was guesstimating that we could pull at least that amount of resources for this additional VM.
-
Maybe use Powershell to perform full VSS backup to the onsite NAS, and use the built in tools on that to backup to the offsite unit.
-
My proposal followed most of yours.
First, virtualize Server 1. This should be pretty straight forward, just install the Hyper-V role in Server 2008, done.
Then stand up another VM on Server 2, install Windows server (might have to buy license), and install Veeam. Use the local NAS as the target to backup both VMs. Veeam could also be used to replicate the data to the second NAS, but PSX's solution might be better.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
So the client doesn't want to spend on hardware, but is willing to spend on software to use the equipment they have; to implement an onsite/offsite backup solution.
Correct?
Are Disks even on the table to be purchased?
Maybe, I guess it would depend on why you want disks? Is it to follow PSX's suggestion?
-
Well you need space to keep backups, and you didn't specify how much free space you had on these NAS units.
And if you're wanting to use them for backup, you're going to want RAID 10 (for spinning rust) which is going to consume a good amount of space.
So to recoup that space, get larger disk and build the array out of those.
-
@Dashrender said:
@PSX_Defector said:
Didn't say what NAS they have, but NetApp has the ever so useful Snapmirror, which will replicate all the data to another device automagically.
http://www.netapp.com/us/products/protection-software/snapmirror.aspx
Performing replication is gonna depend on how fast they want to recover. Using things like Veeam to send data back and forth is fine, but the delta would be kind of a problem. Using snapmirror would replicate in real time and recovery would be within seconds.
I would beef up the two servers, slap all of the VMs on one, run Veeam to clone across to the secondary for local redundancy, keep critical data on the NAS and shuffle the data over to the offsite backup with the other NAS.
This would require a significant storage purchase at minimum, but not a bad idea, assuming the system will hold enough disk that is.
Considering what they are probably using, I bet it wouldn't cost much. We ain't talking about my Cisco UCS blades with NetApp SANs. I would bet the "server" is some off the shelf junk from Fry's and the NASes are some kind of Buffalo device. Don't bother with PCI-E SSDs and fancy Fibre Channel SANs, this is fairly simple in the grand scheme of things. Some high quality SATA would do them just fine.
First, take the first machine and P2V it into the second machine. No point leaving it bare metal. Then take the first machine, nuke and pave then install Hyper-V or ESXi stand alone. Move your three VMs over to the first machine, nuke and pave the second machine with Hyper-V or ESXi, setup Veeam replication between them, then map the NAS through whatever way you need to for it to keep data onsite and off.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Well you need space to keep backups, and you didn't specify how much free space you had on these NAS units.
And if you're wanting to use them for backup, you're going to want RAID 10 (for spinning rust) which is going to consume a good amount of space.
So to recoup that space, get larger disk and build the array out of those.
Aww.. you're right. The purpose of the NASs is to be the backup storage. They will go with either RAID 10 or RAID 6 depending on how much storage they feel they need. The NAS doesn't need to be the fastest thing in world.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
First, take the first machine and P2V it into the second machine. No point leaving it bare metal. Then take the first machine, nuke and pave then install Hyper-V or ESXi stand alone. Move your three VMs over to the first machine, nuke and pave the second machine with Hyper-V or ESXi, setup Veeam replication between them, then map the NAS through whatever way you need to for it to keep data onsite and off.
WOW, this ends up with 4 copies of the data, probably overkill for them.
I'm guessing they only have two server because the first one ran out of resources and storage slots, so they bought a second one. I have no idea how old the servers are, or what brand (though I'd guess Dell knowing my friend), etc.
-
@Dashrender said:
@PSX_Defector said:
Didn't say what NAS they have, but NetApp has the ever so useful Snapmirror, which will replicate all the data to another device automagically.
http://www.netapp.com/us/products/protection-software/snapmirror.aspx
Performing replication is gonna depend on how fast they want to recover. Using things like Veeam to send data back and forth is fine, but the delta would be kind of a problem. Using snapmirror would replicate in real time and recovery would be within seconds.
I would beef up the two servers, slap all of the VMs on one, run Veeam to clone across to the secondary for local redundancy, keep critical data on the NAS and shuffle the data over to the offsite backup with the other NAS.
This would require a significant storage purchase at minimum, but not a bad idea, assuming the system will hold enough disk that is.
That's how data safety works - lots of copies. If you want a good, reliable onsite storage and a good, reliable offsite one you are going to have to have a lot of copies for all of that to exist.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@gjacobse said:
Are they looking to replace both with new hardware? or just reallocate what they have?
Good question. A single new server would handle everything here easily. But as he mentioned available capacity (how did you determine that only 1 vCPU was available - that's not how capacity works) it seems like they are trying to use what they have currently.
Was there supposed to be a reply on this one? There is a blank quote above.
-
@Dashrender said:
I've updated the first post a bit.
My associate said that they are sure there are enough resources to load up an additional VM and give is approx 40 GB of storage on the host. As for the 1 VCPU and 4 GB RAM, I was guesstimating that we could pull at least that amount of resources for this additional VM.
4GB of RAM is easy to determine, as that is just a question of "is there 4GB of RAM available?" So I get that. But 1vCPU is not a measurement of anything. That could be nearly all the power of the box or effectively nothing. That he stated it that way would worry me because it indicates that he is confused about what a vCPU is and is confusing it with a physical core and is overbuilding his servers by a huge degree trying to not let the hypervisor share resources.
-
@Dashrender said:
The plan is to use the hardware they have, no replacements.
I don't recall what type of NASs they were, but it was mentioned that they could possibly self sync, so PSX's solution might be the play for offsites.
The biggest question would be.... what NAS does not sync to itself? One much exist, but I've never heard of it.
-
@Dashrender said:
My proposal followed most of yours.
First, virtualize Server 1. This should be pretty straight forward, just install the Hyper-V role in Server 2008, done.
Then stand up another VM on Server 2, install Windows server (might have to buy license), and install Veeam. Use the local NAS as the target to backup both VMs. Veeam could also be used to replicate the data to the second NAS, but PSX's solution might be better.
I would not be willing to run HyperV on 2008. Can you update that to 2012 R2 before doing that? HyperV was slow and unstable in the 2008 and 2008 R2 era and still a bit anemic in the 2012 era. HyperV is very important to keep up to date.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@gjacobse said:
Are they looking to replace both with new hardware? or just reallocate what they have?
Good question. A single new server would handle everything here easily. But as he mentioned available capacity (how did you determine that only 1 vCPU was available - that's not how capacity works) it seems like they are trying to use what they have currently.
Was there supposed to be a reply on this one? There is a blank quote above.
browser glitch I'm guessing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I've updated the first post a bit.
My associate said that they are sure there are enough resources to load up an additional VM and give is approx 40 GB of storage on the host. As for the 1 VCPU and 4 GB RAM, I was guesstimating that we could pull at least that amount of resources for this additional VM.
4GB of RAM is easy to determine, as that is just a question of "is there 4GB of RAM available?" So I get that. But 1vCPU is not a measurement of anything. That could be nearly all the power of the box or effectively nothing. That he stated it that way would worry me because it indicates that he is confused about what a vCPU is and is confusing it with a physical core and is overbuilding his servers by a huge degree trying to not let the hypervisor share resources.
He didn't state it that way, I did. Just for a starting point. You point is taken.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The plan is to use the hardware they have, no replacements.
I don't recall what type of NASs they were, but it was mentioned that they could possibly self sync, so PSX's solution might be the play for offsites.
The biggest question would be.... what NAS does not sync to itself? One much exist, but I've never heard of it.
eh? soooo Western Digital MyClouds will sync with each other? who knew? lol
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
My proposal followed most of yours.
First, virtualize Server 1. This should be pretty straight forward, just install the Hyper-V role in Server 2008, done.
Then stand up another VM on Server 2, install Windows server (might have to buy license), and install Veeam. Use the local NAS as the target to backup both VMs. Veeam could also be used to replicate the data to the second NAS, but PSX's solution might be better.
I would not be willing to run HyperV on 2008. Can you update that to 2012 R2 before doing that? HyperV was slow and unstable in the 2008 and 2008 R2 era and still a bit anemic in the 2012 era. HyperV is very important to keep up to date.
We haven't spoken about the licensing at all, other than to be told where their current level on that one box was.
On an assumption that no, they can't upgrade the license, because of your warranted concern, I'd take an image of the metal, then install stand alone Hyper-V 2012R2, then push the image down into a VM on that host. This is just an example.. it might not apply to this specific situation. Clearly we need more information about storage setup, etc. -
Since you're stuck with 08, i'd use XenServer. it's all open source now, and purdy nice. I dont have much experience with it but 2 of my home servers are running it. purdy neat. way more robust than the free version of esxi.
