I've seen that with other apps. In particular, our ERP system was done that way, and it causes some interesting issues once in a while that I can only shrug off and say "get something written for the platform on which it runs".
Kurt On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:52, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> wrote: > I got the impression that they ported it over with little regard for the > differences in how the OS's behave, what conventions are used, etc... > > -sc > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:24 PM >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> Subject: Re: Archive data >> >> Bummer. It's really well respected in the Unix world. I wonder if they've >> bungled the port. >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 05:19, Steven M. Caesare <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Huge resource utilization on servers >> > Poor templates for managing filtering/reporting. >> > High noise/signal ratio >> > Etc... >> > >> > -sc >> > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 6:02 PM >> >> To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> Subject: Re: Archive data >> >> >> >> Really? How so? >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 14:56, Steven M. Caesare >> >> <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > Yes. Evil. >> >> > >> >> > -sc >> >> > >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: David Lum [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:54 PM >> >> > To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> > Subject: RE: Archive data >> >> > >> >> > You guys had Tripwire? We have it here...rarely used as near as I can >> tell... >> >> > >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 2:53 PM >> >> > To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> > Subject: RE: Archive data >> >> > >> >> > You know, if we had kept our Tripwire installation.... >> >> > >> >> > Scratch that... I'd be in the looney bin... >> >> > >> >> > -sc >> >> > >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> >> > From: Kurt Buff [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:04 PM >> >> > To: NT System Admin Issues >> >> > Subject: Re: Archive data >> >> > >> >> > 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/> ~ >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ~ 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/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
