Small Commercial NAS vs. Consumer Desktop Whitebox Fileserver
-
It's like asking if anyone can prove that Ferrari will actually get you to the store fast. There is no question, it will get you there faster than the roads you have will let you.
-
@coliver said:
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
And I've heard longer. It's because it is going to physical tape retrieval.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
And I've heard longer. It's because it is going to physical tape retrieval.
That seems insane, tape... Might as well use the standard service. Or BackBlaze. Tape... ....
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
And I've heard longer. It's because it is going to physical tape retrieval.
I didn't realize it was physical tape. Wow. I thought tape was getting to the price/gb line where disk is less expensive. Is tape that much more reliable?
-
@coliver said:
I didn't realize it was physical tape. Wow. I thought tape was getting to the price/gb line where disk is less expensive. Is tape that much more reliable?
We use some of both. The problem is with harddrives you need to have it 4 places when you are complying with retention periods of forever, it does not take that much for multiple drives to go because of it's rust.
Tapes seems to hold up a little better if stored in controlled environments, you can get away with two off site ones at different locations. But yes, retrieval sucks. We use HDDs for our normal backups and replicate to others.
-
@coliver said:
I didn't realize it was physical tape. Wow. I thought tape was getting to the price/gb line where disk is less expensive. Is tape that much more reliable?
Yes it is AND cheap. If you are going to the highest end tape the cost per TB gets very low. And tape is incredible for long term archival storage. But if you can't leverage the full capacity of each tape, it costs a fortune due to the waste.
-
@Jason said:
Tapes seems to hold up a little better if stored in controlled environments, you can get away with two off site ones at different locations. But yes, retrieval sucks. We use HDDs for our normal backups and replicate to others.
Wanted to highlight that bit. One of the key factors with tape is that they are removed and stored in a low cost, controlled location like a vault or a cave (or a mine.) Because they are designed to be transported, not kept stationary, they can do things that disks cannot. And because you take them offline they do not draw power while sitting for a decade. So for slow or nearly never access, they are excellent. Disks are far better if you access the data, tapes are far better if you do not.
-
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
And I've heard longer. It's because it is going to physical tape retrieval.
I didn't realize it was physical tape. Wow. I thought tape was getting to the price/gb line where disk is less expensive. Is tape that much more reliable?
https://www.tape4backup.com/29080.php?gclid=CIrgj9ibwsgCFQIOaQodLecN1A
Where can you get 2.5TB worth of storage for under $40?
Mind you, that's the physical capacity. Compression in backup schemes can be super powerful. I've had LTO4 tapes not even get near capacity after compression for a week's worth of full backups.
-
Not uncommon to get 2:1 compression on tapes.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@coliver said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
And I've heard longer. It's because it is going to physical tape retrieval.
I didn't realize it was physical tape. Wow. I thought tape was getting to the price/gb line where disk is less expensive. Is tape that much more reliable?
https://www.tape4backup.com/29080.php?gclid=CIrgj9ibwsgCFQIOaQodLecN1A
Where can you get 2.5TB worth of storage for under $40?
Mind you, that's the physical capacity. Compression in backup schemes can be super powerful. I've had LTO4 tapes not even get near capacity after compression for a week's worth of full backups.
Cool! I've used tape in the past but it was always considered the primary backup method... probably why I'm a bit jaded to it.
-
@coliver said:
.Cool! I've used tape in the past but it was always considered the primary backup method... probably why I'm a bit jaded to it.
It sucks to do daily and weekly backups on tape because those are the ones you restore most often. They are still hard to beat for long term storage and will be around for a good while with many place now being required to keep data forever.
-
Especially as new tape technology is always being introduced.
-
@mlnews said:
Data is accessed via API. So you would need a tool for accessing it. This is enterprise cloud storage, not an SMB tool.
Cloudberry is a popular tool for this, and the pro version is pretty cheap for the functionality it provides.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Products I would use for a scenario like this include and ARE limited to:
- Synology and/or IOSafe two bay NAS enclosure (paging @Brett-at-ioSafe )
- Netgear ReadyNAS two bay NAS enclosure
Both RAID 1, both business class, both flexible, powerful and cheap. Literally nothing else I would look at or consider.
Thanks, Scott!
@DustinB3403: I'm not sure that our solutions - which are fireproof/waterproof hard drives and NAS - would be the best option in this scenario but, if you have any questions, feel free to ask.
-
I think that something along the lines of the IOSafe is best. Simple, matches how things worked before and is very reliable.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Maybe I can get management to see that renting storage from Amazon S3 is way more viable.
Adds a lot of complication, though.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Of these two options, which would be better:
-
Purchase a 2 bay external LaCie
-
Build a OBR10 Desktop file server using consumer desktop parts.
The only limitation is the pricing has to be near identical.
For a two-disk enclosures (and two disk only!) you go for Netgear and Synology. They have smart software inside you don't need to spend time on tuning, tons of integration and MOST IMPORTANT their enclosures don't eat much of power. Anything you build yourself with a desktop is going to suck way more watts from your power socket
-
-
Those little Atom processors that they tend to use (I miss the Sparc32 days, it was just more interesting) use very little electrical power and produce very little heat and tend to last for forever. Pretty much unbeatable.
