Don't build your own completely... Get yourself on of the chassis that support multiple drives right from the beginning...
One Example: - http://www.google.com/products?q=server+chassis+rack+storage+3u *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> ** On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:06 PM, John Aldrich <[email protected] > wrote: > Thanks, Matt. I hear what you’re saying. I don’t currently have a lot of > faith in DFS-R. We’re currently using that between our two DC/File/Print > servers and I am not confident in it’s ability to mirror every change. We > had problems when we initially set up DFS-R with files being locked when it > tried to mirror and thus the file not being copied over to the second > server. > > > > IF I go with a “home brew” solution, I will probably use something like > Double Take to do the replication. From what I hear it’s worth the price, > which is only about $1000-$1500 per machine. Since we’ll only be replicating > between two machines, shouldn’t be more than $2-3K for the software. > > > > I don’t know enough about server hardware and RAID controllers to be that > comfortable with building my own. That being said, I know there are a lot of > geeks in close enough proximity that I could probably get some cheap labor > to help me build something like that. J > > > > I’m still going to see what the Chattanooga VARs propose before I look at > rolling my own. J > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > *From:* Matthew W. Ross [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Friday, October 23, 2009 11:58 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Home-brew SAN vs name-brand storage appliance > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John Aldrich > [mailto:[email protected]] > To: NT System Admin Issues > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 > 08:07:22 -0700 > Subject: Home-brew SAN vs name-brand storage appliance > > > > Ok. To recap what I previously posted. J > > > > > > > > We are wanting to migrate the storage role off our DCs and have a > redundant > > storage device at a remote location. The link between those locations is > a > > hardware VPN between two ASA devices. At the remote location, we have a 5 > > Mbit Metro Ethernet connection. At the main office we have a 2 Mbit > metro-e > > connection. > > > > > > > > We are currently using about 150-200 gigs of storage on each of two > servers. > > We want to leave room for growth so I can redirect "my documents" and > such > > for every desktop (about 100-125 users, including senior managers and > > C-level executives.) Also, we plan on bringing email in-house sooner > rather > > than later. My current plan is to use Kerio Mail Server, and they say on > > their website that for my user level, I should make sure I have between > > 100-200 Gigs of disk space. I figure to be on the safe side, I should > plan > > on up to about 500 gigs of drive space for email. Add that to the > probable > > doubling of our current usage at a minimum when I add the "my documents" > and > > such, we're right at a terabyte there. > > > I'd be paired to set up quotas; My Documents, depending on how you set up > the redirection, can include My Pictures, My Videos and My Music. Even if > you don't allow those folders to automatically redirect with My Documents, > big ugly piles of MP3s will show up in there someday. > > > > > > A potential vendor suggested that to leave room for growth, etc, I might > > want to plan on about 5 Tb of disk space. > > > I agree. Make a 5 year plan, or however long you want to setup with the > people in your organization with the pursestrings. Make it clear that the > solution you're providing will someday be inadequate, and you will have to > do this all over again with new hardware and more storage. If they know that > this solution should last until 2014, and you come back in 2016 saying it's > time to upgrade... they know the hardware went beyond it's intended > lifespan. > > > > > > Also, I would want to replicate any changes made to files on the primary > > storage appliance to the remote / DR storage appliance on an async basis. > > > With such small pipes between locations, I'd be looking at any solution > that can do delta copies on a schedule. DFS-R or Rsync come immediately to > mind, although I know there are some big SANs that do this on the block > level. > > > > > > Files would be shared out over the DCs as they currently are, only > instead > > of the files being stored locally they would be sharing out files from > the > > primary storage appliance. > > > > > > > > I am wanting to do this with server-class hardware, not a PC. What I like > > about a SAN is that they can and do come with redundant everything, > > including controllers, NICs, power supplies, etc. My concern is that if I > > get a server and attach a RAID array to it, if the RAID controller fails, > > I'm SOL until I get a replacement RAID controller. With a SAN, I don't > have > > to worry about that, as it has a redundant RAID controller attached to > the > > RAID box fabric. > > > I understand this desire for redundant hardware. Let me be just the fly in > the ointment: It doesn't matter. There will be something somewhere that will > cause the system to fail. A controller will be faulty, but won't switch over > to the secondary. A switch will need to be reset. A janitor will unplug the > array. Ben will try to reset the USB controller, but reset everything Intel > accidentally. (Hey, it's a very good example of good intentions that went > awry!) In other words, Murphy will visit. > > > > > > Now, what would you folks recommend? J > > > Virtualize, including your SAN. What you need is a quick recovery from when > you have a failure. What's quick enough for you? If your virtual file server > and DCs fail, and move to a secondary VM within 60 seconds, then your set. > VMWare can do that for you. Between the two sites, I'd have an off-hours > scheduled DFS-R between the two virtual File Servers, and have a backup as > well. (Repeat the mantra: Replication is Not Backup.) This solution would > probably be more redundant and less expensive than the Big Box SAN. > > In my opinion, I do think that the Big Box SANs are a good investment, but > only when you can't scale to the same level using your own hardware. That's > currently at about the 12TB level. Then you are beyond the level of what you > require, ask somebody who does that kind of stuff for a living to help. > > > > > > John-AldrichTile-Tools > > > Good luck. > > --Matt Ross > Ephrata School District > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.423 / Virus Database: 270.14.27/2453 - Release Date: 10/23/09 > 06:56:00 > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
