Backup File Server to DAS
-
So let's start over, are these facts correct:
- DAS, NAS and SAN are the same price. We need to get the right storage for the need and not talk prices or let pricing assumptions drive us to one solution or another.
- A small RAID 1 unit will be large enough not only for one server but for all of the servers? Can easily get to 6TB of usable capacity. The one server is just 500GB. But you need overhead for versioning.
- Windows Backup does not properly support NAS (file), so would need DAS/SAN (block.)
- Other free backup options like Crashplan will properly support NAS (file) so that we can use one device for all of the servers.
- Keeping the cost down is really important.
- Block storage is unnecessarily exposed to ransomware.
That should be the roundup of needs before arriving at a decision.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Trusting them to be IT pros when they don't claim to be isn't exactly trust. They don't claim to be technical or understand any of this stuff. , you go to IT companies or professionals.
no, they claim to be, because they have on their website SW academy
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
no, they claim to be, because they have on their website SW academy
Do you have a link to that? I've seen it before but never saw anything on it that claimed that they knew anything about IT (which they do not and really should not given that they operate a platform for discussion.)
-
@scottalanmiller said:
So let's start over, are these facts correct:
- DAS, NAS and SAN are the same price. We need to get the right storage for the need and not talk prices or let pricing assumptions drive us to one solution or another.
- A small RAID 1 unit will be large enough not only for one server but for all of the servers? Can easily get to 6TB of usable capacity. The one server is just 500GB. But you need overhead for versioning.
- Windows Backup does not properly support NAS (file), so would need DAS/SAN (block.)
- Other free backup options like Crashplan will properly support NAS (file) so that we can use one device for all of the servers.
- Keeping the cost down is really important.
That should be the roundup of needs before arriving at a decision.
If the above is true, I think that we have a clear path to a solution:
- Windows Backup is too limiting and must be abandoned.
- Crashplan looks viable, needs to be tried out.
- NAS is the only rational solution as it is the only one that does not require a full RAID 1 DAS unit for every server that we want to back up.
-
The vendors that I recommend for two bay NAS (or DAS or SAN) units are always Synology, Netgear ReadyNAS and IOSafe (based on Synology.) All make two bay, RAID 1 units that are very flexible. And they all make ones that can convert between NAS and SAN. So you can use them however you like. You can use them as NAS today or make them into SAN tomorrow.
And here is Brett from IOSafe in case you have any questions: @Brett-at-ioSafe
-
Now, of course, we get to this point and we realize that because you were so focused on DAS that we overlooked something big. The DAS units that you are talking about are very, very simple devices using USB3, eSATA or similar and do not have LUN management. That makes them a "one device per server" took.
However, if you moved to SAN you can make one LUN per server that you want to back up. In this way you can still get a single SAN and backup all of your machines, you just have to have one LUN per machine and you get much less efficient use of your storage and it is much harder to use. No actual benefit over the NAS approach, but it can be done and should not be overlooked. This still completely exposes you to ransonware, though, so is not ideal there either.
-
-
Yes but Spiceworks University doesn't claim to be good at IT or to know anything about it. Spiceworks University is their internal training system for teaching people how to use the Spiceworks software. Not IT training. There is a big gap between offering a class and claiming to be experts. And you'll notice that they teach only ONE subject, virtualization. That's a pretty odd thing to teach all on its own. Very strange that of all things they have one class without any of the needed classes to prepare someone to understand the material.
I think this is a case of good marketing. They never claim to know anything at all about virtualization or even IT, but they let their customers make the assumption. That's how marketing almost always works. You can't lie, but your customers will normally lie to themselves so you just don't have to correct them.
-
If you are just looking for file backup. Ditch windows backup and use something like: http://www.cobiansoft.com/cobianbackup.htm
-
@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.
