Backup File Server to DAS
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
now i looking for prices and i found that SAN is the expensive one
Performance vs. cost: SANs are typically higher performance than NAS devices, but cost more. Since SANs usually use Fibre Channel, they are able to operate substantially faster than a shared Internet Protocol (IP) networks. Fibre Channel operates at 8 gigabit and higher speeds as compared to existing IP networks which often run at 1 gigabit or less.What is your source for this bad information? This is just silly. Sure FC is often 8Gb/s or faster. But you can get NAS at 100Gb/s if you want. Yes, I said 100Gb/s.
What IP network do you know that runs LESS THAN 1Gb/s? Clearly this information is biased and unreliable. Even home networks over a decade ago were not that slow.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
can you tell me the range of prices of both (SAN and NAS) ??
I bought my first SAN for $99 (Netgear consumer.) The cheapest combined SAN and NAS that I've bought is $279 (Netgear ReadyNAS.)
These days not so many companies making good commercial gear below $300, but in the $400 range you can get something from most any good vendor. Netgear and Synology are your main vendors here. Buffalo, QNAP, Thecus are the other big players.
-
-
Technically, if you really want to get pedantic, SAN can be cheaper than NAS because a SAN is so simple. Any external hard drive can be a SAN with the ride cables. But that's getting well into the "silly" category.
No one is making a serious SAN or NAS device that is not at a certain level and once you get to that level, they are the same prices and almost always the same physical devices.
-
ReadyNAS 312 for $420 on Amazon.
-
Ok thank you very much, i have to leave now and see you soon
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
Where are you finding these things? One of the most critical skills in IT is understanding how to identify a credible source. Souces like MangoLassi's community, Spiceworks community, SMBITJournal, etc. are peer reviewed and are written by "known" people. You know the history of the person posting and you can see people verifying them, correcting them, explaining etc.
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
Performance vs. cost: SANs are typically higher performance than NAS devices, but cost more. Since SANs usually use Fibre Channel, they are able to operate substantially faster than a shared Internet Protocol (IP) networks. Fibre Channel operates at 8 gigabit and higher speeds as compared to existing IP networks which often run at 1 gigabit or less.
Let's look at how to read this:
- They are talking about typical. Meaning what people often buy, not something about SAN or NAS. So this is useless information. Yes, people often spend more on their SAN than on their NAS. But this tells us nothing about SAN or NAS, just about how people are spending their money.
- They point out that people typically buy FC for SAN. This is likely true, but tells us something about the assumptions. They are basing their information on what typically buy, not on SAN or NAS itself. What do you care about what people "normally buy"? You were here to learn about SAN, not to learn about buying habits, right? You are reading about buying habits and thinking that it is telling you about SAN.
- FC can run at 8Gb/s. It can also run much slower. This statement is obviously wrong and quite misleading. Most SMBs with FC are not this fast.
- IP networks generally run at 1Gb/s or faster, not less. This information is just completely wrong. 1Gb/s and 10Gb/s are the standard speeds for the last many years (since around the same time that 8Gb/s FC became popular) for IP networks for raw links and no one would be running a SAN with only one link, so common speeds are actually 2Gb/s, 8Gb/s and 20Gb/s.
Partly the article is just wrong. Partly it is just being read incorrectly and not telling you what you think that it is telling you.
-
Here is the Synology DS214 on Amazon for just $299.
-
It should be noted thta Crashplan is an AWESOME file-level backup utility. It will not, however, restore a dead server or VM from scratch.
I would recommend a NAS (see other posts in this topic for recommendations)... and then using a backup utility from Veeam, Unitrends, StorageCraft (ShadowProtect), etc, etc... This way you can retain the file-level recovery via crash plan, and the blank slate recovery via a full-system backup utility.
-
@dafyre said:
I would recommend a NAS (see other posts in this topic for recommendations)... and then using a backup utility from Veeam, Unitrends, StorageCraft (ShadowProtect), etc, etc... This way you can retain the file-level recovery via crash plan, and the blank slate recovery via a full-system backup utility.
Remember he is not virtualized, so Veeam can't do anything at all here and Unitrends can only do file level backups.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
now i looking for prices and i found that SAN is the expensive one
Performance vs. cost: SANs are typically higher performance than NAS devices, but cost more. Since SANs usually use Fibre Channel, they are able to operate substantially faster than a shared Internet Protocol (IP) networks. Fibre Channel operates at 8 gigabit and higher speeds as compared to existing IP networks which often run at 1 gigabit or less.What is your source for this bad information? This is just silly. Sure FC is often 8Gb/s or faster. But you can get NAS at 100Gb/s if you want. Yes, I said 100Gb/s.
What IP network do you know that runs LESS THAN 1Gb/s? Clearly this information is biased and unreliable. Even home networks over a decade ago were not that slow.
yes, even the home networks that Scott and his friends where running were not that slow. I only moved to a 1 Gb/s network about 2 years ago.
But I do very little internal transfers it wouldn't matter. -
Veeam Endpoint Recovery free works on physical devices. 8-) I have it running on my office machine here as well as at home.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
I would recommend a NAS (see other posts in this topic for recommendations)... and then using a backup utility from Veeam, Unitrends, StorageCraft (ShadowProtect), etc, etc... This way you can retain the file-level recovery via crash plan, and the blank slate recovery via a full-system backup utility.
Remember he is not virtualized, so Veeam can't do anything at all here and Unitrends can only do file level backups.
I thought they had a tool now for bare metal backups - mostly intended for desktops, but it could backup anything Windows based?
-
Yeah. The Desktop backup tool is the Endpoint Recovery free. It does work great on Windows Server installs as well. (Don't know if it works on Windows core installs or not though).
-
@dafyre said:
Veeam Endpoint Recovery free works on physical devices. 8-) I have it running on my office machine here as well as at home.
Oh, interesting.
-
This post is deleted! -
@dafyre said:
Yeah. The Desktop backup tool is the Endpoint Recovery free. It does work great on Windows Server installs as well. (Don't know if it works on Windows core installs or not though).
But I dont' think you can schedule it - well maybe you can with PowerShell.
-
I feel like anything here is going to be really limited.
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
Yeah. The Desktop backup tool is the Endpoint Recovery free. It does work great on Windows Server installs as well. (Don't know if it works on Windows core installs or not though).
But I dont' think you can schedule it - well maybe you can with PowerShell.
You can schedule it via the GUI.
