• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

to server or not to server

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: JCROCCO
Well, I have a quote from dell for over 2000 for just a storage server, and a full server with 2 250 disks raid1 for 2500. I can actually get the NAS with 480 gig for $1600.
Click to expand...

You can get much better deals from them if you look around, or wait a bit. I helped a friend get an 830 with 2 80 gig sata on a real raid card, 2GB of ram, and it was under 1500. Adding more drives for storage is the cheapest part.
 
The more servers you have, the more complicated life becomes. Adding a second server, for instance, doubles the odds of having a server hardware failure. Plus, if you have unique data on the second server, you have to back IT up, too.
Click to expand...

There are tradeoffs in both directions, have you ever tried backing up several TBs to tape? It's gets really expensive and complicated real fast. I could be wrong since I don't deal with our backups all of the time, but SDLTs only go up to 160/320G so you could need up to 7 tapes for a single TB of data. With multiple servers you can have seperate backups and while the amount of data will be the same, the catalogs and datasets will be smaller making the backups and restores run faster.

And while the risk of a hardware problem is technically doubled, if one of them does die it won't take everything down with it. Having half of your resources down for a few hours for a restore is better than having all of them down. If at all possible, you should _never_ have a single point of failure for a mission critical resource.

Adding more drives for storage is the cheapest part.
Click to expand...

If you stick with crap (S)ATA drives.
 
Does anyone have a couple good resources for Server 2003 or more specifically, SBS? Books, magazines, websites, forums, anything really. Thanks!
 
 
320/640, as opposed to the 160/320.

You are right either way, backing up to tape is GOOD, but not exactly FAST.

We are working on implementing a fibre array, so backup to fibre (fast) and then back up fibre to tape, as it's no longer "live". If it was me, I would start looking at LVM, as I think we can just "freeze" it for a backup while taking a minimal performance hit for the productions stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top