best system for network backups

[ZippyDan]

i want something that

1. has a client i can install on each computer, Windows, Mac, and Linux
2. will do regular backups via the network
3. stores to multiple raid drives
4. expandable so i can add more drives later
5. tells me if a drive is failing
6. tells me if a backup failed
7. can backup specific files/folders
8. can backup entire drives/create drive images
9. reliable - ive rigged up too many backup systems that fail do to one reason or another: protected files (system files or in-use files), scheduling fails to actually work, runs out of disk space without telling me, etc.
10. easy to setup
11. can mirror to an identical system kept at another site (synchronization via internet)
12. other site's system also maintains backup of local computers at that site and synchronizes them with first site
13. cheap

 

[drebo]

BackupEXEC CPS and NOT STORING USER FILES ON THE WORKSTATIONS.

 

[ZippyDan]

I'd love to not store files on workstations, but that ideal is a way off if impractical in my current work environment. So any backup solution needs to support client and server backups

UGH.... SYMANTEC? I'm scared :-( Also, not as cheap as I'd hoped

 

[mcmilljb]

What kind of infrastructure do you currently have? That could help people give better ideas to fit your goals and budget.

For windows clients, I would look at doing file sharing where you set it up to synchronize with the server when you log off, or the client can initiate a sync with the server. Then you have the advantage of having the files locally for speed, but you also have them on a server which can backed up during the daily backup.

I've seen good experiences with telling users "hey save your important files on drive x" or whatever the share drive is. They typically do it religiously because they don't want to lose files, and they knew if their computer had a virus or something was completely flaking out, it was getting reimaged.

 

[drebo]

You can't ask for the moon at the price of a pebble.

BackupEXEC CPS is the correct solution for what you want to do. BackupEXEC does have a desktop agent, but only the server agents are backed up in real time. It is often better to do things right than to do them cheaply, and if this is the way you want to do it, you're going to have to accept the cost. BackupEXEC CPS is the correct solution for this job.

As a matter of policy, everyones' documents folders should be redirected to their shares on the server. Send out a memo saying that only files in their documents folders will be saved and that if they fuck up their locally stored files it's their own problem.

Network policy meets operational policy.

 

[ZippyDan]

my company doesnt run on policies and rigid structure. its a cultural thing, not just company culture but cultural culture

i provide solutions that work within the framework of how they work, so that they can get things done better, not have to fight me to get things done. its a smaller company and a different philosophy but for some people it works better to find realistic solutions rather than antagonistic solutions. i don't have a situation here that is a battle between IT philosophy and stupid users. i'm slowly working towards remodeling the company's technological practices, but i don't know if i ever want to get to the point where we have policies.

that said, im more than willing to drop some money to get the job done right... i'm only wondering if there is more than one way to get it done right. my experiences with Norton A/V make me hates Symantec, but if thats the only way to do it right then fine.

i don't need real-time backup on the clients, only the servers... but i do need some kind of client backup option. so if BackupEXEC can do that then perfect. I'm still trying to figure out what the CPS portion is, and which parts of this solution exactly i need... they seem to have like 8 different packages. i'm also unclear on the pricing. right now it costs more than a server. i dont know if that includes support for multiple clients and servers or not. otherwise it seems kind of silly that i spend more on a backup then i do on the server itself (of course data can be near priceless.....)

last question: is there any good linux-based solution (for the server side of the backups)? i've always been a fan for obvious reasons: speed, cost, reliability.

 

[drebo]

There is no method, except by saving data directly on the server, to replicate that data to a server in real-time. None. It doesn't exist. Period. That's why there exists the ability to save things to a server. Your server then has multiple hard disks for fault tolerance. Multiple hard disks do NOT count as a backup solution.

BackupEXEC CPS uses volume shadow services to mirror every change to every file to a dedicated backup server. Then, with that server, you can take a nightly snapshot to tape. CPS allows you to restore multiple versions of a file, in real time. It's effectively replication. DFS is built in to windows server, and can do a similar thing.

BackupEXEC, as I said, also has a desktop agent that you can load on your desktops. It does not operate in real time, though.

In short, the only way you can get what you want is via saving your files on the server. That's what servers are for. That's why they exist. What's the point of having a centrally managed network if you don't use it to centrally manage your network? Doesn't make sense.

Additionally, there is a HUGE disparity between Symantec's consumer products and their corporate products. Symantec Endpoint Protection and BackupEXEC are industry standards in their respective markets. Do not base your opinion of Symantec's corporate products on their consumer products pre-2008.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Amanda can backup Linux, Mac, and Windows machines. Not sure if it covers the other requirements, I haven't actually used it.

 

[Nothinman]

my experiences with Norton A/V make me hates Symantec, but if thats the only way to do it right then fine.

I haven't touched their A/V tools in a while but BackupExec is pretty much the defacto-standard for backups, sadly. Although all backup tools suck in some way or another so no matter what you choose you're going to be babysitting it.

i'm slowly working towards remodeling the company's technological practices, but i don't know if i ever want to get to the point where we have policies.

I assume that you have HR, accounting, sales, etc policies so why not IT? Having everyone do their own thing with their data is just going to cause you headaches.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: ZippyDan
my company doesnt run on policies and rigid structure. its a cultural thing, not just company culture but cultural culture

i provide solutions that work within the framework of how they work, so that they can get things done better, not have to fight me to get things done. its a smaller company and a different philosophy but for some people it works better to find realistic solutions rather than antagonistic solutions. i don't have a situation here that is a battle between IT philosophy and stupid users. i'm slowly working towards remodeling the company's technological practices, but i don't know if i ever want to get to the point where we have policies.

that said, im more than willing to drop some money to get the job done right... i'm only wondering if there is more than one way to get it done right. my experiences with Norton A/V make me hates Symantec, but if thats the only way to do it right then fine.

i don't need real-time backup on the clients, only the servers... but i do need some kind of client backup option. so if BackupEXEC can do that then perfect. I'm still trying to figure out what the CPS portion is, and which parts of this solution exactly i need... they seem to have like 8 different packages. i'm also unclear on the pricing. right now it costs more than a server. i dont know if that includes support for multiple clients and servers or not. otherwise it seems kind of silly that i spend more on a backup then i do on the server itself (of course data can be near priceless.....)

last question: is there any good linux-based solution (for the server side of the backups)? i've always been a fan for obvious reasons: speed, cost, reliability.

One thing on policies. They are not necessarily antagonistic. The best policies are those developed with and by the end users to meet their business needs. If a business need is to protect data, then a policy needs to be in place that directs IT and the users on how that is going to happen.

It could be via server based file storage and backups, individual desktop backup, folder redirection and so forth. Your notion that policies should be avoided is incorrect and a fallacy from days when IT was (and still is too often) heavy handed in its directives.

Without policies, you are set up for failure. Everyone blames everyone else and the business suffers. With properly designed policies in place, responsibility and accountability are clearly defined and when a problem does occur, recovery/resolution is predefined including limitations.

 

[hiromizu]

If you're looking at saving cost while needing everything you stated, you must implement stricter policies and you must spend the money on a well supported product like Symantec. Also might want to look into Wansync for realtime replication of data.

 

[ZippyDan]

Originally posted by: drebo
There is no method, except by saving data directly on the server, to replicate that data to a server in real-time. None. It doesn't exist. Period. That's why there exists the ability to save things to a server. Your server then has multiple hard disks for fault tolerance. Multiple hard disks do NOT count as a backup solution.

BackupEXEC, as I said, also has a desktop agent that you can load on your desktops. It does not operate in real time, though.

In short, the only way you can get what you want is via saving your files on the server. That's what servers are for. That's why they exist. What's the point of having a centrally managed network if you don't use it to centrally manage your network? Doesn't make sense.

i already said that i don't need real-time backup of clients so i'm not sure why thats the only way to get what i need. anyway, i'm probably going to go with the symantec solution: anyone know if it has clients for linux and mac or just windows?

 

[drebo]

The best place to get part numbers and see what's available for Symantec corporate products is http://www.knowledgedirectweb....symantec/symantec.html . You'll be using the express licensing, I typically purchase licensing without support. This tool will not give you pricing, but it will give you part numbers which you can take to CDW to get pricing. They do have agents for MAC and Linux server, but I believe the Desktop backup option is for Windows only (I am not positive about this, because I do not use this option).

BackupEXEC is not cheap, but it is the best solution. If I seem harsh or abrasive in my recommendation it's only because I've seen far, far too many businesses skimp on the backup solution and then end up having to pay a lot of money for us to come in and recover data. A couple thousand now to save potentially 10's of thousands in lost man hours and data recovery should be a no-brainer from a business perspective. There are cheaper solutions available that you can try if you're feeling brave... NovaStor's NovaNET might be one...we've used it once, and, while it's not terrible, it's not as good as BackupEXEC. For smaller offices with single servers, we use NovaStor's NovaBackup, but it doesn't have any realtime replication or anything like that. A multi-server office, or an office that needs transaction-level backups of a product like Exchange or SQL, needs BackupEXEC.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

my experiences with Norton A/V make me hates Symantec, but if thats the only way to do it right then fine.

I haven't touched their A/V tools in a while but BackupExec is pretty much the defacto-standard for backups, sadly. Although all backup tools suck in some way or another so no matter what you choose you're going to be babysitting it.

i'm slowly working towards remodeling the company's technological practices, but i don't know if i ever want to get to the point where we have policies.

I assume that you have HR, accounting, sales, etc policies so why not IT? Having everyone do their own thing with their data is just going to cause you headaches.

i worked with the guy using backupexec at the community college i go to. hes had very few complaints about it, and even that is while running a version behind. he runs daily/weekly/monthlies to tape and things seem to work pretty well.

 

[hiromizu]

Originally posted by: ZippyDan

Originally posted by: drebo
There is no method, except by saving data directly on the server, to replicate that data to a server in real-time. None. It doesn't exist. Period. That's why there exists the ability to save things to a server. Your server then has multiple hard disks for fault tolerance. Multiple hard disks do NOT count as a backup solution.

BackupEXEC, as I said, also has a desktop agent that you can load on your desktops. It does not operate in real time, though.

In short, the only way you can get what you want is via saving your files on the server. That's what servers are for. That's why they exist. What's the point of having a centrally managed network if you don't use it to centrally manage your network? Doesn't make sense.

i already said that i don't need real-time backup of clients so i'm not sure why thats the only way to get what i need. anyway, i'm probably going to go with the symantec solution: anyone know if it has clients for linux and mac or just windows?

May I suggest you get a consultant to do this? I don't think you realize what you're in for.

 

[netsysadmin]

Checkout the Laptop and Desktop backup option to BackupExec. You drop the client on the desktop or laptop and it backs up to th server the specified folder/files as they are created. It even allows you to specify revisions to be kept. I use it and it works great! Then you just run your BackupExec backup overnight to backup the server and you are set.

John