So, you didn't examine your detailed backup logs to see the timestamp, size and MD5/SHA1 hash of each file and see what hadn't changed in the past 1/3/5 years?
JK - mostly... Kurt On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 07:26, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
