Blank Canvas Business Server

[deskmonkey]

Hi all,

Our current setup is as follows:

1. SBS 2003 for file & Printer sharing.
2. Dedicated Server for our main company DB
3. Dedicated server for mail.
4. Dedicated server for Business Intelligence Software.

State of play at the moment is:

1. Business Intelligence server has failed.
2. SBS Server is on last legs.
3. Email server is fine, but low on storage.
4. DB Server is in Good Health.

We've inherited this setup from previous managers and understand that our whole IT system needs a complete overhaul. We've been quoted by 2 companies - one quoting circa £20k for what seems to be a massive overkill in terms of rquipment - and one quote for circa £5k which seems okay.

Rather than get a third quote, I was hoping to tap the knowledge of you guys as I can be assured objectivity.

We have 30 workstations which use only a thin client to access our ERP/CRM Database and MS Office inc Outlook. We require shared printers and shared folders (although not sharepoint).

If anyone could spare a few minutes to help me objectively assess our needs and point us towards some recommendations in terms of equipment/software, I would be sincerely grateful!

I am happy to answer any and all questions and understand any suggestions are merely that - and not comprehensive recommendations.

Particular questions are:

1. Rack server over Tower server?
2. Office 365 v Local exchange.
3. We currectly use tapes to backup data. Is this still the best on site backup method?
4. Do we really need 4 servers?
5. Most cost effective way of deploying server software and office?

Although I am competent in certain IT disciplines, I am a complete novice in Server technology and software, so would appreciate an element of simplicity if/when replying!

Thanks in advance of any input!

 

[RimBlock]

SBS 2011 standard has outlook included so you have two in one straight away.

What database are you running on the DB server and what Business intelligence software are you using ?.

Another thing to consider is redundancy or more importantly the effect of not having it and you loose one of the servers... What is the effect on the company both financially and reputationally.

Some people do not really require redundancy. I have a client I have just built a server for who owns a metal working company building things like server racks and atm machine housings and they have very little problem if their systems are down for a whole week. Other companies start feeling the hurt if their systems are unavailable for a few minutes and find it is better to have server redundancy as the pain can be far more damaging.

The other option would be to virtulize. One or two decent servers with a good chunk of ram for the whole lot but you really need to measure your resource usage currently across the four servers before you can begin to spec up for a virtulization solution with any hope of getting decent results without seriously over-specing. Have a look at VMWare vSphere or Microsoft HyperV. Do a pilot if you can with the free versions and see which one you prefer.

For deployment you could look at a WPKG Server.

RB

 

[knowlesy]

Hi all,

Our current setup is as follows:

1. SBS 2003 for file & Printer sharing.
2. Dedicated Server for our main company DB
3. Dedicated server for mail.
4. Dedicated server for Business Intelligence Software.

State of play at the moment is:

1. Business Intelligence server has failed.
2. SBS Server is on last legs.
3. Email server is fine, but low on storage.
4. DB Server is in Good Health.

We've inherited this setup from previous managers and understand that our whole IT system needs a complete overhaul. We've been quoted by 2 companies - one quoting circa £20k for what seems to be a massive overkill in terms of rquipment - and one quote for circa £5k which seems okay.

Rather than get a third quote, I was hoping to tap the knowledge of you guys as I can be assured objectivity.

We have 30 workstations which use only a thin client to access our ERP/CRM Database and MS Office inc Outlook. We require shared printers and shared folders (although not sharepoint).

If anyone could spare a few minutes to help me objectively assess our needs and point us towards some recommendations in terms of equipment/software, I would be sincerely grateful!

I am happy to answer any and all questions and understand any suggestions are merely that - and not comprehensive recommendations.

Particular questions are:

1. Rack server over Tower server?
2. Office 365 v Local exchange.
3. We currectly use tapes to backup data. Is this still the best on site backup method?
4. Do we really need 4 servers?
5. Most cost effective way of deploying server software and office?

Although I am competent in certain IT disciplines, I am a complete novice in Server technology and software, so would appreciate an element of simplicity if/when replying!

Thanks in advance of any input!

Rack server over Tower server?
Personally Rack - if you have the ability too always go rack, however it makes no difference it merely tidys up the place and is usually better for cooling etc....

Office 365 v Local exchange.
Again personally 365 - it will serve you well it will keep you up to date with office (providing you choose the e3 or higher plan) and their dedicated support is pretty good. However it all depends on the directors do they like the idea of their emails being offsite even though microsoft is more than qualified its hard getting it into their heads at times..... however onsite is just as easy

We currectly use tapes to backup data. Is this still the best on site backup method?
If you have 2 or more servers you have a couple of options dedicated hdd with windows server backup .... and iscsi via a synology box then another synology box backing that up either offsite or somewhere else in the building or DPM (another microsoft product which backs up to sraw storage literally anything you can build it up with old hdds) and use tapes or online storage for offsite backups personally keep away from the likes of symantec tooo many headaches!

Do we really need 4 servers?
depends on work loads but no i dont believe you do, if you went with the 365 route 2 x Dell R210II, 1 synology RS unit with 4 external hdds (for weekly backups) your server 2008r2 standard license gives you 2 servers a physical and a virtual so you dont need to pay extra please note you will need to buy new cals. depending on your setup Id reccomend at least 8-16gb of ram and 2 x 450gb SAS disks however I have no clue on your storage requirements. I have a client running 30 people of a 365 on 2 x 500gb nearline sas with no problems at all however they dont use sql or any database programs as they are on separate systems which require not to be on the network....

1 physical for DC / file and print
1 virtual for ADFS key component of 365
1 physical for all your BIS, CRM, SQL

All of this is speculative as I have no idea what load your servers are under / require for future expansion etc....

another thing to consider which you haven't mentioned is network security firewalls etc ? if the rest of your system is as outdated. has that even been looked at ?

 

[5tephen]

Does your mail server run some sort of system other than Exchange? SBS2003 must have Exchange running, it can't be on a separate machine, so why you are mentioning that you have a separate mail server from your SBS2003 box is a bit strange.

I would suggest SBS 2011 with the Premium add-on - this includes a second licence for Windows Server 2008 that you can use for your Business Intelligence software and company DB. The SBS can host your files and email. You could easily virtualise that, running both server instances off one Server 2008 host (the SBS Premium licence gives you a licence for a host server).
Without knowing your storage needs, it's likely that a Dell T420 or T620 with two CPU's, minimum 32Gb RAM, three SAS 300Gb RAID 1 arrays would not be far off, get a good RAID card in there too (1Gb NVRAM). Redundant power supplies and 5-Yr warranty too because neither are overly expensive but are so worthwhile.

Regarding RimBlock's message - SBS 2008 and 2011 (whether standard or premium) do not include Outlook. They include Exchange alright but not an Outlook client to go with it

Backup - Altaro Hyper-V backup, running to swappable 2.5" portable USB disks. Takes a full snapshot of your virtual guests, has good restore (and test restore) features, handles drive swapping very nicely, and a nice GUI that gives you a good quick summary of how your backups have been behaving.

 

[knowlesy]

Does your mail server run some sort of system other than Exchange? SBS2003 must have Exchange running, it can't be on a separate machine, so why you are mentioning that you have a separate mail server from your SBS2003 box is a bit strange.

I would suggest SBS 2011 with the Premium add-on - this includes a second licence for Windows Server 2008 that you can use for your Business Intelligence software and company DB. The SBS can host your files and email. You could easily virtualise that, running both server instances off one Server 2008 host (the SBS Premium licence gives you a licence for a host server).
Without knowing your storage needs, it's likely that a Dell T420 or T620 with two CPU's, minimum 32Gb RAM, three SAS 300Gb RAID 1 arrays would not be far off, get a good RAID card in there too (1Gb NVRAM). Redundant power supplies and 5-Yr warranty too because neither are overly expensive but are so worthwhile.

Regarding RimBlock's message - SBS 2008 and 2011 (whether standard or premium) do not include Outlook. They include Exchange alright but not an Outlook client to go with it

Backup - Altaro Hyper-V backup, running to swappable 2.5" portable USB disks. Takes a full snapshot of your virtual guests, has good restore (and test restore) features, handles drive swapping very nicely, and a nice GUI that gives you a good quick summary of how your backups have been behaving.

Personally as much as I heart full blown SBS, sadly its going the way of the DODO and if personally speaking I was to go to SBS I think three 300GB SAS in R1 is overkill and 3 or 4 300gb or 450gb SAS in raid 5 or 6 preferably with 2 x 500gb nearline sas for storage would be the way to go.

not knowing much about altaro (however it seems to looks fairly good) how does it cover a physical sbs and not just the guest OS (virtual)? or would you leave that to WSB ?

 

[5tephen]

I was thinking 1 RAID array for SBS + virtual host OS, 1 RAID array to point SBS's Exchange database + company shared files, and the third RAID array for the server 2008 guest OS and company databases.
Altaro would work in that a bare Server 2008 would be running as the Hyper-V host, then SBS and Server 2008 (hosting the company databases) would be running as two virtual guests. So it is those two that are being backed up.
The physical host wouldn't be covered in this suggested backup but there's nothing really running that couldn't be got going again by a clean install and just installing Hyper-V. All that would be needed is to document what VHD's were stored on which arrays I guess.
Altaro is a great product btw, it was recommended by someone on here a couple of times and I've since used it as my preferred choice.

You are right about SBS being discontinued soon, it's just that good a product that Microsoft aren't making enough money from it, and are trying to get this monthly revenue via Office 365 instead. When you consider that the server would be covered by a 5-year warranty, looking at the cost of this vs Office 365 over that period of time, the SBS I'm sure would be better value. (I can't be bothered to do the maths though!) The OP has to purchase a new server anyway, so putting that little extra into it to provide SBS and Exchange features makes sense in my view.

 

[knowlesy]

I was thinking 1 RAID array for SBS + virtual host OS, 1 RAID array to point SBS's Exchange database + company shared files, and the third RAID array for the server 2008 guest OS and company databases.
Altaro would work in that a bare Server 2008 would be running as the Hyper-V host, then SBS and Server 2008 (hosting the company databases) would be running as two virtual guests. So it is those two that are being backed up.
The physical host wouldn't be covered in this suggested backup but there's nothing really running that couldn't be got going again by a clean install and just installing Hyper-V. All that would be needed is to document what VHD's were stored on which arrays I guess.
Altaro is a great product btw, it was recommended by someone on here a couple of times and I've since used it as my preferred choice.

You are right about SBS being discontinued soon, it's just that good a product that Microsoft aren't making enough money from it, and are trying to get this monthly revenue via Office 365 instead. When you consider that the server would be covered by a 5-year warranty, looking at the cost of this vs Office 365 over that period of time, the SBS I'm sure would be better value. (I can't be bothered to do the maths though!) The OP has to purchase a new server anyway, so putting that little extra into it to provide SBS and Exchange features makes sense in my view.

Agreed SBS is an excellent product and its a real shame theyve ended it. If you were going the sbs route though surely a raid 6 of 4 x 300gb would give you more iops for both os's and the exchange database as 300gb just for an exchange database is a little excessive ?

As for pricing there is a load of material from microsoft (probably highly biased) about moving to 365 saving you money setup and support etc... however in my opinion it is by far the cheapest way to do things for the likes of cals, mail storage eg archiving, data retention not having to worry to much about mail backups. If they wait a little and get server 2012 their cals will hold value for sometime where as when they have to do the next migration they would have to cop for new cals entirely however if they went with software assurance on their cals they could easily migrate at a cheaper cost ?

As for altaro im quite interested in its abilities vs dpm so I will be looking into that cheers.

see costing for 365 http://www.microsoft.com/en-gb/office365/what-is-office365.aspx half way down the page

 

[5tephen]

You are probably right re. the RAID speeds. I was suggesting separate arrays just for organisation/separation of data as much as anything else. 300Gb for the Exchange database and files is obviously a lot (although depends on the size of the 30 user-redirected documents, if they implement this). But it's 300 vs 146Gb which is the next most common step down in SAS disk size, and for the small increase in price, just thought I would suggest that to the OP.

Office 365 has went down in price a lot since I last went near it. I used Microsoft's version when it was BPOS but had awful trouble with it, users constantly needing passwords reset (password changes were just too frequent - not a reliability problem to be fair), public folders and shared folders from other mailboxes ran extremely slowly, it needed that sign-in client thing, and the service had a few outages. I have a good number of clients now on Intermedia's platform (again was partly swayed by recommendations on here ), and it has been bulletproof apart from one outage about 3-4 months ago when some services performed very intermittently. It's more expensive than Office 365 but when I made the move to Intermedia the two were priced very similarly. Intermedia had various migration tools like uploading PST files via FTP, automatic sync over a HTTPS link from an existing Exchange server, active directory sync (I know that O365 has this) and the onboarding team that help with migrations are top guys too.

In saying that, the biggest client I have on a hosted Exchange platform is in the region of 16-17 users, sites bigger than that already have decent hardware so why not make use of that and run Exchange in-house too. Hosted obviously has the many benefits you mention but it definitely is a case-by-case basis for me as to which solution to go for. The OP may have reasons for wanting to go down the hosted route and I wouldn't stand in his way.

I will say though that I am going to find it very hard in a year's time to convince customers on aging SBS platforms that their server is reaching the end of its useful term, but to replace it they're going to have to change to paying monthly for part of their infrastructure when they've had a faultless SBS solution for years that didn't need incur any licencing costs after the initial purchase (apart from CAL's in some cases). They'll not understand why this has to be the case, and think I'm trying to pull a fast one.

 

[#Chri5#]

My 2p (which I started writing before lunch, so might cross over with other posts...)

Given SBS 2003 included Exchange, I'm puzzled why you have a separate mail (Exchange?) server for 30 users. Anyway...

Whilst SBS 2011 is available in the OEM channel till the end of 2013, it is effectively EOL (End Of Life) as a product. IMHO it is still a good choice for a small business, you just need to be clear that it is an older product (Server 2008 R2 / Exchange 2010 etc) and that there might not be a like-for-like migration path in 3 / 5 / 7 years.

In the Windows Server 2012, there's a new version called Essentials (SBS as a product line is dead). It doesn't need CALs but is limited to 25 users / 50 devices out the box. You can transmogrify it into standard Server 2012 (so go beyond 25 users) but keep the SBS-esq features it has (like the Remote Web portal) - see here. There's no Exchange Server included, so the costs and complexity increase.

The way forward to replace SBS 2011 would look to be a single server running Hyper-V (or vSphere Free), then two Virtual Machines (VM). One would be Server 2012 Essentials, a second with Exchange 2010 (though until SP3 for Exchange 2010 ships, you can't install it on Server 2012). A single Server 2012 Standard license gives 1+2 virtualisation rights.

A migration to SBS 2011 is probably the simplest & cheapest option, you just need to be happy with that as a platform for the next few years.

1) Rack v Tower

Do you have suitable server size rack now? If not and do want one, do you have somewhere to put it? Whilst rack servers are a whole lot quieter than they used to be, they can still drive somebody up the wall if setting close to them.

2) O365 vs On-premise Exchange

How good is your Internet connection(s)? What SLA do you have? If there's a problem with the your line and it takes BT 3 days to fix it, what contingency would you have for users to access e-mail? Users could go home but could they work without access to your main database?

On the other hand, using O365 means it's MS's problem to backup and keep the service working, not yours.

3) Is tape still good?

It still has it place, though a pool of external USB HDs can offer similar capacity at a much better cost. Perhaps not as robust but have advantages on the ability to restore data from any PC with USB (ie you don't need to find another tape drive to restore from).

4) Do you need 4 servers for 30 users?

I would say no.

5) Software

By deploy do you mean get licenses for Windows and Office? Or deploy software to client PCs once purchased?

 

[deskmonkey]

hi Guys,

Just a quick line to thank you all sincerely for all your input. Please bear with me whilst I digest all of the responses (this is all very new to me).

I will post back again once I have taken in (and Googled where applicable) your recommendations.

Thanks again and speak soon!

 

[RimBlock]

Regarding RimBlock's message - SBS 2008 and 2011 (whether standard or premium) do not include Outlook. They include Exchange alright but not an Outlook client to go with it

You are of course correct, much to my eternal embarrassment .

It is a big shame that SBS 2011 will be going but it will be supported for a while yet. It seemed to be a great 'out of the box' solution for small businesses to get started but now it seems there will be only the cloud or the more expensive option of buying the individual products that were part of SBS 2011.

RB

 

[deskmonkey]

What database are you running on the DB server and what Business intelligence software are you using ?.

Our DB is a linux SQL I am told. Our BI software is Pro Clarity which gets minimal usage day to day (probably less than 20 queries running daily).

Another thing to consider is redundancy or more importantly the effect of not having it and you loose one of the servers... What is the effect on the company both financially and reputationally.

A loss of service for an hour or so would be absorbed without any real pain. Any more than that would start to become a large inconvenience (especially if at peak times). This only applies to our main DB. We could lose email for a day without any majoy issue - and we could handle a loss of network files and printers for anything upto 6 hours without too much pain.

My understanding is the company DB server is routed via the BS though, although nobody seems to be quite sure how it is all set up!

The other option would be to virtulize. One or two decent servers with a good chunk of ram for the whole lot but you really need to measure your resource usage currently across the four servers before you can begin to spec up for a virtulization solution with any hope of getting decent results without seriously over-specing. Have a look at VMWare vSphere or Microsoft HyperV. Do a pilot if you can with the free versions and see which one you prefer.

I actually really like this idea since I am firmly of the belief that any relatively good server in terms of hardware would involve a lot of waste in terms of resources.

In the Windows Server 2012, there's a new version called Essentials (SBS as a product line is dead). It doesn't need CALs but is limited to 25 users / 50 devices out the box. You can transmogrify it into standard Server 2012 (so go beyond 25 users) but keep the SBS-esq features it has (like the Remote Web portal) - see here. There's no Exchange Server included, so the costs and complexity increase.

I've had a look at that and seen the Standard edition:

Standard
Low density or non-virtualized environments
Full Windows Server functionality with two virtual instances Processor + CAL* $882**

I'm a little confused here. Does this allow me to run 2 instances, or 3 instances (1 x Native + 2 x VM)? If 3, then how does that work from a technical point of view? Or more pertiniently, how could we best use that to replace our existing hardware?

Also, if we paid the $882 (or UK equiv) for the Standard, how much would 30 CAL's cost on top of that? - and is that the best option in terms of cost?

Do we really need 4 servers?
depends on work loads but no i dont believe you do, if you went with the 365 route 2 x Dell R210II, 1 synology RS unit with 4 external hdds (for weekly backups) your server 2008r2 standard license gives you 2 servers a physical and a virtual so you dont need to pay extra please note you will need to buy new cals. depending on your setup Id reccomend at least 8-16gb of ram and 2 x 450gb SAS disks however I have no clue on your storage requirements. I have a client running 30 people of a 365 on 2 x 500gb nearline sas with no problems at all however they dont use sql or any database programs as they are on separate systems which require not to be on the network.....

Storage wise, I would say that 500gb all in would be more than enough, but would like the option for expansion into the future...

I guess the ideal for us right now would be to replace the Business Server and Exchange as both are very much on borrowed time, but be mindful that when the time comes to replace the main DB server and BI server - have made the correct choices at this point to enable relatively inexpensive integration into what we already have.

In my mind and following on from the various contributions above, I would ask:

1. If we got 1 x Dell R210II with Server 2012 Standard, 32gb RAM (bearing in mind our existing server runs on 4gb - and to be fair to it, works well enough). Would that enable us to run our BS (print & file share) + our exchange on a VM via Hyper V? And would that leave us 1 VM to play with (thinking of earmarking for our Business Intelligence software when the server dies). I'll be honest I'm not quite understanding how the whole VM setup works. I'd always thought if you ran VM's, you couldn't use the physical server as anything other than a host for the VM's - is this not the case?
   
2. Could we then replace our main SQL DB with another R210II when the day comes to replace the existing tower server (assuming the above model isn't obsolete)?
3. Could we use our existing UPS's from our HP servers rather than buy a Dell specific UPS?
4. The whole RAID configuration thing has me totally lost.... if someone could take the time to explain our likely requirements in a way a 5 year old could understand, I would be most grateful.....

With regard to Altaro - If that backs up the VM's, would we still require RAID, or is there a simpler system of redundancy management?

I realise there are a lot of questions, but I really appreciate all your time and am reading around as much as I can to understand the advice given!

 

[knowlesy]

I'm a little confused here. Does this allow me to run 2 instances, or 3 instances (1 x Native + 2 x VM)? If 3, then how does that work from a technical point of view? Or more pertiniently, how could we best use that to replace our existing hardware?

IIRC this allows you to run 3 instances 1 physical and 2 virtual so a main OS with 2 virtual OS's on top of that. But I cant see why all 3 cant be virtual ?

Also, if we paid the $882 (or UK equiv) for the Standard, how much would 30 CAL's cost on top of that? - and is that the best option in terms of cost?

Depends wher you buy them or who you buy them from to their discount also depends if your a gov,school/charity etc.... whatever the price is Personally get software assurance.

I guess the ideal for us right now would be to replace the Business Server and Exchange as both are very much on borrowed time, but be mindful that when the time comes to replace the main DB server and BI server - have made the correct choices at this point to enable relatively inexpensive integration into what we already have.

In my mind and following on from the various contributions above, I would ask:
If we got 1 x Dell R210II with Server 2012 Standard, 32gb RAM (bearing in mind our existing server runs on 4gb - and to be fair to it, works well enough). Would that enable us to run our BS (print & file share) + our exchange on a VM via Hyper V? And would that leave us 1 VM to play with (thinking of earmarking for our Business Intelligence software when the server dies). I'll be honest I'm not quite understanding how the whole VM setup works. I'd always thought if you ran VM's, you couldn't use the physical server as anything other than a host for the VM's - is this not the case?

The issue with an R210 is you only get 2x3.5" disks or 4x2.5" which add a lot to the price, make sure your primary OS's / VM's are running of SAS disks 300,450,600,900GB 10K's for 2.5 and I think the same for 3.5's but either way you cant mix nearlines with the 2.5" so your cheap storage is out of the window, I might recommend a rack mount iscsi unit for peoples files etc and backups, from what your saying Im assuming 2 x 600GB sas (for Os and exchange) in raid 1 should do fine, but you may want to get 3 of those in raid 5 of 2.5" discs.

I would recommend two of these servers for redundancy / fail over and balancing.... Two DCs for file + print maybe dfs ?, 1 virtual exchange and 1 virtual sql / bis

Could we then replace our main SQL DB with another R210II when the day comes to replace the existing tower server (assuming the above model isn't obsolete)?

Youd need to do a migration, depending on what version of SQL hoping its not mysql (as I know nothing about it) you may encounter problems if your migrating to newer versions of SQL

Could we use our existing UPS's from our HP servers rather than buy a Dell specific UPS?

Yes, they probably work a little better with the r210IIs working fairly efficient, however depending on the age of the batteries Id give them a run down with the r210's whilst in migration to check their run times as the batteries may be caput.

The whole RAID configuration thing has me totally lost.... if someone could take the time to explain our likely requirements in a way a 5 year old could understand, I would be most grateful.....

Raid essentially in dumb down terms is redundancy or in the case of raid 1 you could call it a backup (mirrord). For instance in raid 1 you have a primary disk and a secondary (which is primary which is secondary isnt important) the pc just knows.... and your machine writes all the info to both disks, now if one disk fails the other takes over so you dont loose all your data and keep running until you replace the disk, you can get warnings via emails or literally by logging onto the server / other 3rd party tools. to sum 2 x same size drives in raid 1 = the amount of the size of 1 drive. Raid 5 is striped across 3 drives so this allows failure of 1 drive as well to sum 3 drives of same size pooled together = size of 2 of those drives added together together. for Raid and virtualisation make sure you get battery backed cache, this is so if you loose power the stuff still gets wrote to disk instead of just dropped. Which cases errors etc....

With regard to Altaro - If that backs up the VM's, would we still require RAID, or is there a simpler system of redundancy management?

Yes, most definatley yes! again without trying altaro I would urge you to use DPM if its just microsoft products your using.

I realise there are a lot of questions, but I really appreciate all your time and am reading around as much as I can to understand the advice given!

Not a problem

 

[RimBlock]

Raid essentially in dumb down terms is redundancy or in the case of raid 1 you could call it a backup (mirrord).

Great advice but I would just make a point about raid and backup.

Raid is redundancy (excluding raid 0 or spanning). If you loose 1, or more in some cases, disk then you still have your data. With Raid 1 you have two disks that are copies of each other so if one fails you have a second to fall back to.

Backup on the other hand is the ability to go back to a previous instance of data within the backup set. How gradually you can move back depends on the defined backup schedule (i.e. how often the backups were made). Raid traditionally, does not have this ability. Backup can protect against an occidentally deleted or corrupted file where as traditional raid cannot.

Just to muddy the waters a little, various custom file system implementations or utilities like ZFS, LVM and Windows Shadow copy provide a snapshop function which records the original state of a portion of data before it is changed so you can roll it back at a later time. This then gives a pseudo backup solution if implemented correctly but still uses disk space and that space is still susceptible to data loss if not properly protected.

Bottom line...
First, have a look at raid 1, 5 or 10 for a solution utilizing between 2 and 4 disks. As Knowlesy has stated, use a controller with BBWC (battery backed write cache) or FBWC (flash backed write cache) is using raid 5 as there is a possibility of getting hit with the raid 5 write hole issue which only becomes apparent on a rebuild. This will cover immediate continuation on a single disk failure (2 disk failure in some situations if using raid 10).

Second, setup a decent backup strategy, and maybe utilise an iSCSI unit for centralised storage with a second copy being made directly to another server at a different location or to removable hard drives which are taken off site on a regular basis (nightly for example).

This will give you data backup and redundancy but will not protect against a full or partial server failure .

RB

 

[knowlesy]

Great advice but I would just make a point about raid and backup.

Raid is redundancy (excluding raid 0 or spanning). If you loose 1, or more in some cases, disk then you still have your data. With Raid 1 you have two disks that are copies of each other so if one fails you have a second to fall back to.

Backup on the other hand is the ability to go back to a previous instance of data within the backup set. How gradually you can move back depends on the defined backup schedule (i.e. how often the backups were made). Raid traditionally, does not have this ability. Backup can protect against an occidentally deleted or corrupted file where as traditional raid cannot.

Just to muddy the waters a little, various custom file system implementations or utilities like ZFS, LVM and Windows Shadow copy provide a snapshop function which records the original state of a portion of data before it is changed so you can roll it back at a later time. This then gives a pseudo backup solution if implemented correctly but still uses disk space and that space is still susceptible to data loss if not properly protected.

Bottom line...
First, have a look at raid 1, 5 or 10 for a solution utilizing between 2 and 4 disks. As Knowlesy has stated, use a controller with BBWC (battery backed write cache) or FBWC (flash backed write cache) is using raid 5 as there is a possibility of getting hit with the raid 5 write hole issue which only becomes apparent on a rebuild. This will cover immediate continuation on a single disk failure (2 disk failure in some situations if using raid 10).

Second, setup a decent backup strategy, and maybe utilise an iSCSI unit for centralised storage with a second copy being made directly to another server at a different location or to removable hard drives which are taken off site on a regular basis (nightly for example).

This will give you data backup and redundancy but will not protect against a full or partial server failure .

RB

Agreed, I was worried about having to wear a flame suit for saying that luckily I haven't... I was merely trying to explain in the most basic way possible

see howstuffworks for a good explination

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/labrats-tv/837-episode-8-raid-explained-video.htm

 

[deskmonkey]

Agreed, I was worried about having to wear a flame suit for saying that luckily I haven't... I was merely trying to explain in the most basic way possible

see howstuffworks for a good explination

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/labrats-tv/837-episode-8-raid-explained-video.htm

Rest assured, the advice was taken as intended! I like dumbed down. To understand complex problems, I need to start with the ABC's!

Thanks for the link above - and to youself and RimBlock for your explanations and patience. I am about to go away and prepare a solution based on what you guys have said and other reading around.

I'm hoping to post this solution for your 'appraisal' if you would be kind enough to help me to the conclusion of this project. Rest assured, once I have the shopping list, I will be handing over the setup and config to experienced support engineers. My role is essentially get the best value solution, which you guys have been instrumental with.

Thanks again.