No, they can do the restore. They can test the VM's because I'll want them accessible to sample the restored data. I'll test it by sampling the data. I hate it.
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:37 AM, John Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > I disagree on that, I want my guys to be able to do the restore because > invaiably > John W. Cook > Systems Administrator > Partnership for Strong Families > > ------------------------------ > *From*: Jonathan Link <[email protected]> > *To*: NT System Admin Issues <[email protected]> > *Sent*: Fri Sep 24 11:33:00 2010 > *Subject*: Re: SAN question > > Testing the restore on a periodic basis is probably the task I like the > least. But, if I had a minion, it's not one I would push down to him. > > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Jeff Steward <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Isn't that the truth. Another piece of advice on disaster recovery and >> service contracts: There is a world of difference between a "4 hour call to >> response" contract and a "4 hour call to repair" contract. In the first >> instance you can be DAYS waiting on parts, in the second you can be drinking >> coffee while a tech is replacing the guts of your tape library within a few >> hours. >> >> -Jeff Steward >> >> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Oh, I understood that you meant that. But I have seen too many times >>> that the focus is on backup: making the windows, saving space, compressing >>> data, etc. >>> >>> And very little consideration is made to getting it all back into place, >>> and reintegrating the saved data with existing data. >>> >>> Even backup applications which talk about speed rarely mean "restore >>> speed" >>> >>> *ASB * >>> >>> >>> >>> * * >>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Raper, Jonathan - Eagle < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> ASB, thanks for clarifying…. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Didn’t you hear what I *MEANT*?! J >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE >>>> >>>> Technology Coordinator >>>> Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA >>>> * >>>> *[email protected]* >>>> *www.eaglemds.com >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 11:01 AM >>>> >>>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >>>> *Subject:* Re: SAN question >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Backup AND Recovery. >>>> >>>> >>>> Trust me, the second one won't work without the first, but the second is >>>> done poorly, you'll still have lots of grief and pain... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker> >>>> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* >>>> * * >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Raper, Jonathan - Eagle < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +100,000,000 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Who cares about your High Availability & redundancy if you don’t have a >>>> **ROCK_SOLID_BACKUP_PLAN**. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You need these books: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/701 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Curtis **KNOWS** his stuff, and you (as well as all the rest of us, if >>>> we haven’t already) would benefit from his knowledge and experience on the >>>> subject, less we experience an RGE… [1] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> HTH… >>>> >>>> Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE >>>> >>>> Technology Coordinator >>>> Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA >>>> * >>>> *[email protected]* >>>> *www.eaglemds.com >>>> >>>> [1] Resume Generating Event >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* Jeff Steward [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Friday, September 24, 2010 10:49 AM >>>> >>>> >>>> *To:* NT System Admin Issues >>>> *Subject:* Re: SAN question >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What is your current backup solution? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -Jeff Steward >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, John Aldrich < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Well, my (admittedly limited) understanding is that at the low-end SANs >>>> have >>>> a lot of overlap with NAS and that they are almost interchangeable. I >>>> want >>>> some sort of separate machine to get the "file server" role off the DCs. >>>> Maybe that means a NAS, maybe it means a SAN, maybe it means a server >>>> with >>>> DAS running Windows Storage Server. At this point, I'm not really sure >>>> what >>>> the best money would be. Whatever we get, I want it to be expandable so >>>> that >>>> as we (hopefully) grow, we can add more storage as needed. >>>> >>>> I do like the idea of having tape to back up whatever we have. If we're >>>> going to have email in-house, we're likely to end up with at least a >>>> couple >>>> terabytes of data in the long run, so whatever archival backup we end up >>>> with is likely to need to be a library, instead of just an on-board tape >>>> drive. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Kevin Lundy [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:12 AM >>>> >>>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: SAN question >>>> >>>> >>>> And absolutely none of that requires a SAN. Especially for your data >>>> set >>>> size. >>>> >>>> Why do you think you need a SAN? versus NAS? versus well architechted >>>> DAS >>>> with decent tape? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:37 AM, John Aldrich < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> I want to ensure that the data integrity remains intact, even if it >>>> takes a >>>> couple days to recover. This is business-critical data, although we >>>> could >>>> live without it for a couple or three days, it would be very difficult >>>> and >>>> time consuming to recreate much of the data on the servers. For this >>>> reason, >>>> I want redundant disks, network, controllers, etc. >>>> I believe I previously mentioned that my CEO told me we could live with >>>> taking up to 3 or 4 days to recover the data, but after that, it would >>>> be >>>> problematic. Personally, I'd like to get it down to under 48 hours to >>>> recover (not 4 business days, 48 actual hours.) That's why I want >>>> redundant >>>> controllers or if I can't get redundant controllers on the storage >>>> appliance >>>> itself, I want redundant storage appliances, such that the data itself >>>> is >>>> redundant. >>>> I would not like to have to go to the CEO and tell him "sorry, we lost >>>> the >>>> data because the system crashed and we had no backups." Theoretically, I >>>> could have one "appliance" and a tape library and be good, but I'd >>>> prefer to >>>> have it a *little* more robust than that. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 12:12 AM >>>> To: NT System Admin Issues >>>> Subject: RE: SAN question >>>> >>>> > set up in some way that there's lots of redundancy >>>> >>>> Data redundancy? Disk redundancy? Controller redundancy? Site >>>> redundancy? >>>> Link redundancy?... >>>> >>>> If the answers to any of the above are "yes", to what degree? >>>> >>>> You can go nuts with this stuff... as has been mentioned before, what >>>> are >>>> your business requirements driving this architecture? >>>> >>>> -sc >>>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:28 PM >>>> > To: NT System Admin Issues >>>> > Subject: RE: SAN question >>>> > >>>> > Well, I *would* like to get the storage off the domain controllers and >>>> have it >>>> > set up in some way that there's lots of redundancy. I suppose I could >>>> buy >>>> a >>>> > Microsoft Storage Server with a couple terabytes of disk space and use >>>> that. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > From: Bill Humphries [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> > Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 3:14 PM >>>> > To: NT System Admin Issues >>>> > Subject: Re: SAN question >>>> > >>>> > Yeah, my vote is for DAS. You have a simple network that doesn't have >>>> to >>>> be >>>> > complex. A carpet company isn't some startup or tech company that >>>> will >>>> > change radically in a short period of time. The only way things >>>> radically >>>> > change there is if Shaw or Mohawk come knocking at the door...then you >>>> > have different problems. >>>> > >>>> > Bill >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Jeff Steward wrote: >>>> > I'm bored, I'll bite. >>>> > >>>> > Like others here, I'm not convinced you even need a SAN or even NAS. >>>> You >>>> > can probably make use of DAS. >>>> > >>>> > To even begin to make an attempt to give you more guidance we need: >>>> > >>>> > How many users will be hitting the file server. >>>> > What type of file i/o are we talking about? Have you benchmarked your >>>> > current performance? How much storage do you currently have and how >>>> > much do you think you will need to meet anticipated growth over the >>>> next >>>> 24 >>>> > to 36 months. >>>> > >>>> > If you move to providing in-house Exchange, how many users will you be >>>> > hosting? How many are heavy duty users versus light duty? >>>> > >>>> > That's a start, answers to those questions will help us help you >>>> further. >>>> > >>>> > -Jeff Steward >>>> > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:16 AM, John Aldrich >>>> > <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > Ok, guys. I'm trying to narrow down my many choices with regards to >>>> our >>>> on- >>>> > going search for a SAN manufacturer. I'd like your thoughts on the >>>> whole >>>> > question of adding more intelligence vs just adding more disks. i.e. >>>> the >>>> EQ vs >>>> > LeftHand models. >>>> > >>>> > I can see arguments to be made for both models. I'll tell you that, >>>> initially, the >>>> > SAN is going to be a glorified file server, however, we plan on >>>> hosting >>>> our >>>> > email data store on the SAN when we bring email in-house later on. >>>> I've >>>> > already verified with the email vendor that I hope to use that this is >>>> not >>>> a >>>> > problem, so that's a non-issue. Other than that, the only database we >>>> would >>>> > store on the SAN would possibly be the database from our Vipre >>>> install, >>>> > although initially that would stay on the local storage. >>>> > >>>> > So, I'd like to see some discussions of the benefits of just adding a >>>> tray >>>> of >>>> > "dumb drives" or adding a complete controller along with the drives (a >>>> la >>>> > LeftHand.) >>>> > >>>> > I just don't know enough about the benefits of each model to know what >>>> > would work best for us. I'm hoping that you guys who are more >>>> experienced >>>> > would give me the benefit of your knowledge. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Thanks, >>>> > John Aldrich >>>> > IT Manager, >>>> > Blueridge Carpet >>>> > 706-276-2001, Ext. 2233 >>>> >>>> >>>> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >>> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >>> >>> --- >>> To manage subscriptions click here: >>> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ >>> or send an email to [email protected] >>> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin >>> >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ >> >> --- >> To manage subscriptions click here: >> http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ >> or send an email to [email protected] >> with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin >> > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > > ------------------------------ > CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or > attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), > confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, > dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without > the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information > may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act > of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or > unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil > and/or criminal penalties. > Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really > need to. > > This email and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for > the intended recipient(s). If you are not the named recipient you should not > read, distribute, copy or alter this email. Any views or opinions expressed > in this email are those of the author and do not represent those of the > company. Warning: Although precautions have been taken to make sure no > viruses are present in this email, the company cannot accept responsibility > for any loss or damage that arise from the use of this email or attachments. > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
