I concur on that issue too, sorry but its 6am on a Sunday - my body says sleep - my kids say "get up we are hungry and want to play" I've had no coffee and not thinking too straight. . Laters
Mark -----Original Message----- From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 22:41:31 To:[email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: DR strategy question I still say that RAID..to me.. is not a DR strategy. It's just good server hardware practices in my mind. You break the mirror and not only do you have 7 years of bad luck you now have mirror management issues. Mark Parris wrote: > I meant the staff were incompetant not the methodology. > -----Original Message----- > From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:22:11 > To:[email protected] > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: DR strategy question > > Me small firm. Me has never considered Mirroring...Disk/Raid. etc etc... > anything other than a good server hardware setup. It's not DR. It's just > good quality server hardware is all for the time that the adaptec card > starts screaming like a banshee when drive 1 dropped off.... > > Disk imaging is DR > Backing is DR > Online back is DR > > All of these are DR... not having a secondary DC is seen by some to be > insane DR but we in SBSland also know that having one DC means we 'can' > image the dang thing (giving ~Eric a heart attack nonetheless). > > But to me RAID has never been a disaster strategy of any kind. Heck I'm > not even sure I like the folks that break a mirror just to patch. > > They are incompetent not because they are a small company that has grown > huge...they are incompetent because they've gotten some stupid idea that > RAID is anything other than > a. Ant spray > b. Good quality server hardware best practice > > Mark Parris wrote: > > >> *What are the scenarios they've developed that disk mirroring >> addresses (at least in their minds?)* >> >> *Incompetence* – they are basically a small company that has grown >> huge and the processes and management leave a lot to me desired. The >> disk mirroring is used everywhere all servers, all drives – everything >> is mirrored. Screw performance. It’s a New Application, So that will >> be a new server and some more mirrors then…. Oh and the other reason >> is they use ArcServe – with every box having different levels of agent >> and they all……. I could go on and on and on and on and on. Time I got >> back into banking I think. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Al Mulnick >> *Sent:* 11 February 2006 00:03 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [ActiveDir] OT: DR strategy question >> >> I am absolutely fascinated by this Mark. What are the scenarios >> they've devloped that disk mirroring addresses (at least in their minds?) >> >> I know I'm getting ready to delve into some of this one more time [1] >> and I'm always interested in adding one more crazy idea to the wall. >> >> [1] more or less for fun this time. >> >> On 2/10/06, *Grillenmeier, Guido* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> >>> What would the impact be on AD if they plugged the OS and >>> Application disks back in after 3 months or after AD tomestoning? >>> >> well, I'd say AD won't have too much of an issue with it at all - >> however, they'd have to reset the Exchange Server's machine-pwd or >> rejoin it to the domain since it will likely not be able to create a >> secure channel. >> >> Not sure how the Exchange server itself will react to this time-warp (it >> would likely cough up a bit)... but it doesn't sound like a scenario >> that would hurt your AD. >> >> Certainly important not to use this approach (using a mirror-disk) for >> AD DC themselves (could be a potential solution if you could really >> guarantee that you'd pull the disks from all DCs in the forest at the >> same time - highly unlikely and certainly not recommended). But I'd >> certainly also question this approach from a long-term >> cost-perspective... >> >> /Guido >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Mark Parris >> Sent: Freitag, 10. Februar 2006 13:02 >> To: ActiveDir.org >> Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: DR strategy question >> >> Where I am working at the moment part of their DR strategy consists of >> breaking a mirrored pair and keeping it in a fire safe in the event of >> server failures, I have managed to get them to drop this idea for DC's >> but they still insist on doing it for other servers. Application servers >> I don't care about but I do care about the Exchange server , they are >> only pulling the mirror on the OS and the Application and not on >> logfiles etc, as these are on raid 5. What would the impact be on AD if >> they plugged the OS and Application disks back in after 3 months or >> after AD tomestoning? What is the impact on the other files on the other >> disks. The org is E2K3 and W2K3 too. It smells of deep deep sh.... to me >> but, I want quantification. >> >> Mark >> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >> List archive: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ >> >> > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
