Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 80073	2007-06-10 21:30:00	Server Back Up - Best Way?	susann (12077)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
558008	2007-06-10 21:30:00	I work for a small-medium company (approx 30 users) and we currently use a tape drive to back up 3 x servers each night (approx 150GB of data). The current system requires 2 tapes which are not automatically changed so we end up backing up data throughout the morning which is not ideal. I also do not have a lot of faith in the back up and the 2 tapes do not back up everything we have. So we are buying a new system as soon as possible! Our IT supplier has suggested a new tape drive for approx $3,700 (+ tapes) which will back up 200/400GB of data (uncompressed/compressed) allowing us room to grow over the next few years. All the specs sound fine but then we got to thinking - why are we still using tapes for our back up? Isn't there a better way?!! I've been browsing this forum but most of what I've seen relates to personal back ups. I wondered if any of you out there are involved in backing up your server and if so, what system works well for you? I've been looking into backing up to a hard drive (but as this has to reside off-site I assume we'd need several of these? and if they are USB-connected, I assume they are quite slow?) or using a service like www.netrescue.co.nz to back up files over the internet. I'd be interested in hearing your views (and any alternative ones)! Thanks guys Susan	susann (12077)
558009	2007-06-10 21:55:00	Having never put a backup system into a production server situation, here's just some ideas I'm going to throw out there: 1) You could back up to an external hard disk, which you can buy relatively cheaply now (around $200-300 for the amount of storage you want). 2) You can do differential backups i.e. each time you run the backup, you're not backing up everything, rather you're only backing up the stuff which has changed since the last backup. This doesn't work in a tape situation, but works great if you're backing up to hard disk, as it only needs to copy the new files, and the file which have changed, and keeps the unmodified files intact. 3) Backing up files over the internet will get very expensive, and will be much slower than backing up to removable media.	somebody (208)
558010	2007-06-10 22:37:00	I've installed a few REV drives for backup but they have a limit of 70/140 Gb per cartridge, or 35/90 for the earlier models. Also, if they fail, and I've had one fail, you have to (try) to deal with Iomega customer support which is abysmally bad. So bad in fact that I won't be installing any more REV drives. Tapes give you the advantage of being able to store your backups off-site. In the event of a total disaster like fire/flood/theft you'll still have your data. They are reasonably expensive however. Using an external hard drive or a NAS device is inexpensive and easy, but you've got all your eggs in one basket so in the above situation you'd be screwed. Although I have to admit I have two of my customers servers using this type of backup at the moment.	Mackin_NZ (6958)
558011	2007-06-11 00:19:00	Why don't you ask your supplier whether other backup media was evaluated? Get them to tell you why their proposal is the best for you . If you don't trust them, get in someone else who specialises in backup solutions for a second opinion/quote . This certainly is an ideal time to re-evaluate your backup strategy and the means of executing that strategy . But it is not the best idea asking here as any competent advisor would want to know a lot more about you and your requirements than you could or would provide in an open forum . And, BTW 'somebody', of course tapes can be used for differential and incremental backups . Indeed, that is probably how most big organisations use them . As an ex large network manager I know that's how we used them .	linw (53)
558012	2007-06-11 00:37:00	The last response I got from them was that yes, tape is the way to go. It just seemed strange that they dismissed any other ideas. Probably should get a second opinion... Thanks folks.	susann (12077)
558013	2007-06-11 00:52:00	And, BTW 'somebody', of course tapes can be used for differential and incremental backups. Indeed, that is probably how most big organisations use them. As an ex large network manager I know that's how we used them. For some reason I read the original poster's comment as saying that they were simply recycling the same set of tapes every day. Otherwise yes - I agree completely with what you are saying - I should have been clearer in my post.	somebody (208)
558014	2007-06-11 00:55:00	I bought an LTO HP backup system last year, paired it up with Backup Exec, running smoothly, data size has grown from 62Gb to 110Gb with max on this drive of 200Gb. 110Gb in 3 1/2 hrs is pretty good and I dont know a better system other than tapes........ Go for it! Oh and for the edit, I have never used incremental, I know a few who might say yay, however there is nothing more frustrating than search the media for the correct day especially when you keep the tapes off site....If the tapes have the capacity, run FULL backups	SolMiester (139)
558015	2007-06-11 01:06:00	LTO2 is the system we've been quoted on . I'm pretty sure we currently do a full back up each day - we have 10 days worth of tapes that we rotote . Also will keep a tape each month/quarter as well .	susann (12077)
558016	2007-06-11 01:10:00	LTO2 is the system we've been quoted on . I'm pretty sure we currently do a full back up each day - we have 10 days worth of tapes that we rotote . Also will keep a tape each month/quarter as well . Yes, LTO2 is the newer device, great speed and reliability . Get a decent backup program to run the device though, windows backup is only average at best . . .	SolMiester (139)
558017	2007-06-11 02:03:00	Sounds like good advice, Solmiester. I am out of touch with the new drives but it is amazing how it usually still comes back to a tape solution!	linw (53)
1 2 3