|
Dilbert As gently caress posted:Be amazed at SMB where +70% is still not virtual This. Most SMB's I've done work for are still not doing any Virtualization. Hell, I just took on a client running an NT 4.0 server. Guess what my first priority is there?
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The first priority is always "it can't cost anything". The vast majority of SMB's will flatly bury their heads about operational risk and value. Yep. Their other five 'servers' are Compaq or whitebox PC's running illegal copies of everything from Windows Vista to Server 2008 R2 Web Server. Good times ahoy.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
AtomD posted:I'm sorry if this was discussed before, but does anybody have experience with a Windows 2012 Storage Spaces solution? MS is pushing using a JBOD SAS array attached to a physical Windows Server cluster. It should allow scaling out and storage tiering (between platter and SSD only) at a much lower cost than a good SAN solution, but I've got a real bad feeling about trusting Windows to not screw something up eventually. I was recently at a Microsoft Camp for a one day Server 2012 lab they hosted at their campus. I was always taught that when it comes to RAID to rely on specialized hardware creating/running/managing for it as opposed to software control of it, and I've never had an experience that has lead me to think that isn't correct. I brought this up to the presenter and he pretty much focused on it being cheaper this way (which yeah, it is) than paying for hardware that'll handle the RAID functions. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'd NEVER trust my RAID to a software solution.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:There are a bunch of enterprise software vendors that use software raid. There's nothing inherently wrong with software raid and it has a lot of flexibility over hardware raid solutions as you can integrate it more tightly with the volume manager and filesystem to make smarter choices about where to place data. Modern CPUs are also significantly faster than they used to be so there is little need to worry about offloading that work. I appreciate the info. I work in the small business world, so enterprise level stuff doesn't trickle down my way too often. Probably should have kept my mouth shut here, but maybe someone else with the same mindset will read all this and learn as well. Thanks for the free lesson!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
Syano posted:What do you guys see being used most in the SMB space for backup storage? Are people storing their backups on the same SAN as their production data? Or do you see folks adding secondary storage or maybe even local storage for backups? We're just in the process of setting up an Exagrid unit to be the D in our B2D2T setup. I can't get them to spring for replication offsite....
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:23 |
|
|
parid posted:Anyone have recommendations for backup storage target systems? Commvault's software dedupe and compression tech continues its march to mediocrity. I'm getting real tired of them moving the goal posts for dedupe database's system requirements (it's now: just put it on FusionIO). Their storage efficiency has been poor. Including compression were seeing worse than 4:1, 420TB stored in 116TB of disk. Throughput has also been abysmal. If you add in the FusionIO cards, Commvault's very high support costs (we have capacity base licensing), and the cost of FAS2240's that we currently use, this environment has become very expensive and performs poorly in just about every measure. Really happy with ExaGrid at the moment personally. Not cheap though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2014 03:04
|
|