Start with the single point of what they want, in this case two servers to cover the lost off one, then explain that the likeliness of a power failure is higher than the server failing, that the AC failing is higher than a single server failing, that perhaps a tornado or other natural disaster is higher than the server failing. Of course you'll have to find all of the stats as they relate to you.

Then explain that it's pointless in covering the server if you don't take care of those things first.

I'm not sure where it came from but Scott said that Dell server have a 4 hour out of 8 year expectation of down time.

@DustinB3403 said:

Even though we couldn't possibly push a full month's backup (~24TB [this would comprise 4 weeks of full backups]) offsite it might be viable for the incremental backups. Which is what I now need to look into, and our weekly delta is low enough that we need to weigh the options of taking tapes / disks home weekly with the cost to restore from an online storage provider.

You can't keep incrementals offsite without the fulls. Incrementals only are useful with fulls. The two are part of the same package.

@DenisKelley said:

@KOOLER said:

@DenisKelley said:

** I'll be at VeeamOn next week** and one of the things I need to wrap my head around is how Veeam processes synthetic fulls when pushing to the "cloud." I run my setup with Reverse Increments and drop to tape, but now that my Internet bandwidth is speeding up, I'm thinking of switching to Forward Increments and using the synthetic fulls.

Check you PM. I'll be there. You're welcomed to shake hands and share some drinks 🙂

Dang, sorry Kooler. I didn't have alerts go to email and completely missed this. I was wondering if you were going to make and am sorry we didn't get a chance to meet.

Well I had bad flu so don't remember alf of what I did in Vegas 🙂 Now on MVP Summit so... Hope we\ll make it other year 🙂

@Dashrender said:

I'm not sure about that if that was the case, then why is Scott so dead set against Hot Spares? Unless he's only against hot spares for spinning rust RAID 5.

Hot Spares with R5 are insane as it could be a live part of the array making it a RAID 6. RAID 1, same thing, just make it part of the array. Both cases are insane to have hot spares.

With RAID 6 you can have them in situations where the hot spare does not push you unnecessarily close to RAID 10 and RAID 5.3 (aka RAID 7) is not available. But that's relatively uncommon.

In RAID 10 you can have them but they only make sense in very large arrays or cases where you just can't get to the array to swap the failed drives.

In some cases it is an architectural problem, in others it is that the cost is just not justified.

If the idea is keeping the budget down, software RAID sounds like a great option. That is a large chunk of cash necessary to get a quality RAID controller.

Ok jason, you're right. I haven't the slightest idea. None.

Have a good day.

I'll have to go suck my thumb..

One of the most important steps of taking backups is testing them. Not just the processes, but that is how you verify that the backups are being taken correctly too.

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller earlier was mentioning differentials vs incrementals.

I wonder if the terms still apply, or if the industry at large has dropped the two terms and simply moved to the use of incrementals.

Pretty big deal... if you delete a differential nothing bad happens. Delete an incremental and you have a disaster...

http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1276968-backing-up-6-pc-s-to-a-nas-using-acronis?page=1#entry-5202270

I would need to incorporate the top script into the bottom script. Get-ADGroupMember is part of the script which only expands the groups, which works fine, need that to be added into the 2nd script which only outputs groups and other users, rather then all users.

Weird how these things come in groups. Had someone else a day later try to use a Dell C series too.

they havent been whining about performance today so i'm just gonna wait til tonight

Requesting deletion as I've created individual topics under Programming.

The biggest reasons for always virtualizing are around hardware abstraction and free. Virtualization is free and easy, which is important as it takes away the "why not virtualize" caveats. Virtualization has, effectively, no downsides. It actually lowers the cost and effort of systems administration and through the miracles of abstraction it actually makes the overall system simpler, rather than more complex!

The hardware abstraction aspect is critical because it makes our systems more stable, rather than less stable, and more flexible for whatever we might need in the future. It reduces technical debt with no real cost of its own. These aspects mean equal or lower cost with lower risk.

It's these aspects, the "always pros" and the "lack of cons" that puts virtualization into the solid "always category.

In previous versions(of MS office) and I'm stretching my memory as I haven't had to do this in a long time my self.

You could place another window right behind the presentation view and use Alt-Tab to present it.

@DustinB3403 said:

So you could use something like WinSCP to connect to Amazon S3 service of yours assuming its configured as NFS / SMB Share and copy down or upload your file(s).

No, there are a couple things wrong here.

NFS / SMB are network file systems, not block storage. So this goes against what you posted in the line about about using whatever filesystem you want which means block storage. Neither block storage nor network file storage is an option on any of these products. Nor would you want it as even NFS is horribly weak over a WAN link and SMB is far worse.

WinSCP is a tool for SFTP, FTPS, SCP and FTP usage, not SMB or NFS. So that isn't the right tool in any circumstance here.

@dafyre said:

Best way I've heard it described is that when you enable Hyper-V on a Windows Server, your Windows Server Core (or GUI) becomes the Linux equivalent of Dom 0

And exactly like installing Xen onto Linux, Xen inserts itself as a "shim" under Linux and then reboots, booting into Xen instead of Linux. HyperV is identical, inserting itself as shim under Windows, rebooting and booting into HyperV instead of Windows.

HyperV is modeled identically after Xen.