Toolset usage on soma samples (which did indeed taint that), and some on copies/restored samples.
But the "don’t really know about the rest of it" was kind of the point. We didn't sample ALL of the data, but a subset for each major type/class of users/data and extrapolated from there. It was enough to determine that a substantial amount of tier1 storage was for data that was old & dusty. -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:09 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Archive data > > How did you do your sampling? I'm thinking that you've either a) turned > instantiated nftsdisablelastaccessupdate in which case you don't know or b) > you've disturbed the last access time, in which case you've tainted the > sample data, at least, and don't really know about the rest of it. > > But aside from that, if it's work product (so as to exclude mp3s, etc.), and > there isn't a data retention policy, why not just leave it on primary storage, > assuming that there is enough room to do so? > > Kurt > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 06:56, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Well, I assume that even looking at a subset, it may be obvious that for > something like user data, for example, that some large percentage of it may > be greater than several years old and not accessed in the last 3 years (or > whatever your threshold may be). > > > > We were pretty easily able to take a statistically valid sample of our data > and extrapolate out for a good amount if it, even if we didn't account for the > overall total. > > > > -sc > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 9:53 AM > >> To: NT System Admin Issues > >> Subject: Re: Archive data > >> > >> Uh, > >> > >> If you don't know how much storage there is, how do you know that any > >> of it needs to be archived? > >> > >> Just asking... > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 06:49, David Lum <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Windows servers for file/print, and a *lot* of IBM SAN storage > >> > (about 4 > >> servers racks full - dunno how much storage it is since SE manages > >> it), which is ex$pen$ive to expand and far more than we need to spend > >> to keep users old crap. Functionally a 2TB RAID1 USB would be > >> sufficient. I'm thinking $1000 or less of NAS with a ROBOCOPY job > >> (pulling from six different servers or so) should be more than sufficient. > >> > > >> > I have submitted a proposal, we'll see if it flies. > >> > > >> > Dave > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 6:19 PM > >> > To: NT System Admin Issues > >> > Subject: Re: Archive data > >> > > >> > What is your current system? Hardware and OS? > >> > > >> > Is it using SCSI, SATA, SAS, PATA? Is it hardware RAID? Does it hot swap? > >> > > >> > Frankly, if your hardware hot swaps, and it's SATA or SAS, it might > >> > be cheaper and more efficient to swap out disks one at a time, let > >> > the array rebuild and then expand your space. Once you've replaced > >> > the drives, Win2k3+ should recognize the new (unpartitioned) space, > >> > and allow you to expand the current partition to fill it. > >> > > >> > As pointed out, if they can't say for sure that they don't need it, > >> > then they probably *do* need it. > >> > > >> > Kurt > >> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 13:09, David Lum <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> Wow - nobody? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> From: David Lum [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 8:18 AM > >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues > >> >> Subject: Archive data > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Do any of you guys have an automated method for migrating old, > >> >> unused user data off your primary servers? I’m talking about data > >> >> users don’t want to have deleted, but they maintain for “I might > >> >> need it > >> someday” purposes. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> To accommodate this I would think a cheap RAID1 NAS should be > >> >> sufficient, there is no need for high-speed, multiple user access. > >> >> I’m thinking it would be a very cheap way to pull a TB or so off our > SAN…. > >> >> > >> >> David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER > >> >> NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION > >> >> (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > >> > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > >> > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > >> > >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > >> <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
