+1 Figure out what the business requirements are, including costs, and the solutions become more readily apparent.
-ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Brian Desmond <[email protected]>wrote: > *Have you come up with all your requirements yet? I think you need to stop > looking at SANs or any piece of technology and first work with the business > to document what they require. Once you’ve done this, present your > requirements to vendors and see what they come back with.* > > * * > > *To the consultant’s point, you don’t typically backup the SAN, you backup > the data via the host owning the data. Various backup programs can do that > streaming over the fiber channel backend straight to tape.* > > * * > > *SANs, even replicated ones, don’t negate the need for backups. If data > gets corrupted or deleted or something, that corruption/deletion will get > mirrored to the second device. Some vendors (e.g. NetApp) offer plugins that > will actually make snapshot backups with the assistance of the host and > store them on the same storage units. I’d suggest looking at this stuff. * > > * * > > *Thanks,* > > *Brian Desmond* > > *[email protected]* > > * * > > *c – 312.731.3132* > > * * > > *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 9:38 AM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: SAN question > > > > Well, I think I have a pretty good handle on the meaning of the term SAN. > Perhaps I should say “storage appliance.” J What I was originally looking > at doing was having two “storage appliances” (i.e. NetApp, Equallogic, etc > box) at physically separate sites, with one replicating to the other. To me, > that makes a lot of sense, but then it does nothing for long-term data > protection. I do not like the idea of “host-based” replication, as that adds > yet another layer of complexity and another point of failure. > > > > After discussing it with the D/R consultant, he suggested a single > appliance and a tape backup, which of course, would require a PC or > something to attach to the SAN and back it up to tape or run a backup > service. > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > *From:* Mayo, Bill [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:27 AM > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: SAN question > > > > I think the nomenclature makes things a little confusing. We had that > problem around here, too, for quite a while after setting up a SAN (many > folks still have a problem). I *think* you are using the term SAN to refer > to a disk array. A SAN is like a LAN, MAN, or WAN. It is the network, not > some particular thing that is attached to the network. If you have 2 disk > arrays that are connected, you do not have "2 SANs", you have 1 SAN and 2 > disk arrays. The SAN itself is comprised of the fibre channel switches and > the things that connect to them (just like a LAN consists of > switches/routers and the things that connect to them). This concept is > important, as it makes it clearer why you would attach a tape drive through > the SAN. By talking to your tape drive through the SAN, you remove the need > for the tape drive to be in close physical proximity to your backup server. > If you are able to have geographically separated data centers connected to > the same SAN, this means that you can have your tape backup automatically > "off site". The server doesn't know or care where the tape drive is, it > just talks to it over the SAN. > > > > We are doing something like this. We have 2 data centers, and we have a > disk array and a tape library in each. The data is on the disk array is > replicated in real time to the secondary data center. Our backup system > makes a copy of the backup to the secondary data center. We are able to do > this because we have plenty of fiber between these 2 locations, and both our > LAN/MAN and our SAN make use of this fiber. > > > > Bill Mayo > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Martin Blackstone [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:14 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: SAN question > > If you are just backing up to tape and your SAN goes down, where will you > restore too? Do you have a spare disk pool to use? > > If it was “me”, I would be looking at a SAN solution that offers its own > proven DR solution. > > Since I only know NetApp, they have a tool called SnapMirror that is built > into the OS. You pay for the license and plug in the serial. > > Then setup your DR targets and let it rip. If your primary SAN goes down, > you can do some clicks and bring the system online with all your data ready > to access. > > > > But you seem to be talking about a lot of things you want. You want DR, you > want clustering. If you cluster, maybe you only need to backup to tape. > Unless you want to buy a clustered SAN and a DR SAN. Of course if you are > going to have a DR SAN, I assume you have a DR location? > > I mean if the building burns to the ground do you have a location with the > resources needed to keep the company running? Not just hold the data? > > > > Have you narrowed this down to 3 vendors yet? > > > > *From:* John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 06, 2010 6:52 AM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* SAN question > > > > Guys, I’m still working on my storage needs, as the project I’ve been > working on probably won’t get approved until early next year at the > earliest. I was talking to a D/R consultant recommended by one of the folks > on this list. Unfortunately, he does not work with SMB clients, only large > clients such as Coca Cola, etc. > > > > I had been thinking of getting two SANs and having one replicate to the > other for D/R purposes. Most of our operations run off the AS/400 so that > would not be much affected (except if we are able to some how back up to the > SAN, which is unlikely with our current AS/400, due to disk space > limitations on the 400) one way or the other by the SAN project. The > aforementioned consultant suggested that we look into getting just one SAN > and a tape backup for it or online backup service instead of doing two SANs. > Most of the data on the Windows side of things would be hard to replace if > it died, so while it’s not “critical” to our operations, it’s still highly > important. > > > > What do you guys think of that suggestion? Would any of you guys do > something like that? Why or why not? > > Also, anyone know any D/R consultants in the North Georgia area who work > with SMB clients? > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
