8TB Daily backup on a Super Budget ... ha
-
Oh okay. Then $1500 might be a viable solution. Just have to talk ioSafe into different drives.
Or go without the fire proof box and go with a Synology 214 with 8TB drives.
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
At some point the answer is... the budget is wrong.
Not necessarily. You can do a meh job to stay in budget. That doesn't negate the value of the backup, just the level of actual protection.
No, at some point the budget would always be wrong. Maybe not necessarily in this case, but some level is always too little.
-
And he wants OFFSITE backup, no?
-
He says "I would prefer to stay away from cloud backups as the companies internet connection is metered and uploading 8TB of data every day would cost us a fortune."
But that's not the case. If you sent a seed drive to an offsite, and then just replicated the changes, it wouldn't be that bad.
-
@BRRABill said:
He says "I would prefer to stay away from cloud backups as the companies internet connection is metered and uploading 8TB of data every day would cost us a fortune."
But that's not the case. If you sent a seed drive to an offsite, and then just replicated the changes, it wouldn't be that bad.
Well, you don't know their change rate. If their change rate is 100 GB a day, and they are rate limited to 10 GB a day, that's a no go.
-
Right but the quote of can't upload 8TB a day" probably isn't accurate.
-
@BRRABill said:
Right but the quote of can't upload 8TB a day" probably isn't accurate.
Not really, the client can't upload 8TB ever because their on a metered Internet service.
-
@BRRABill said:
Right but the quote of can't upload 8TB a day" probably isn't accurate.
You're right it not, the OP even says that they don't backup all 8 TB every day later in the thread - which of course completely changes the discussion.
-
@Dashrender said:
You're right it not, the OP even says that they don't backup all 8 TB every day later in the thread - which of course completely changes the discussion.
I'd have to assume if they were creating that much data per day, they'd be larger than a company that would have a $740 backup budget. (Though we have not determined that to even be the case.)
Would that be an accurate thing to assume, do you think/agree?
-
@BRRABill said:
Right but the quote of can't upload 8TB a day" probably isn't accurate.
He contradicted himself. My guess is that it is a reasonable daily upload. Maybe a few hundred GB at most.
-
@BRRABill said:
@Dashrender said:
You're right it not, the OP even says that they don't backup all 8 TB every day later in the thread - which of course completely changes the discussion.
I'd have to assume if they were creating that much data per day, they'd be larger than a company that would have a $740 backup budget. (Though we have not determined that to even be the case.)
Would that be an accurate thing to assume, do you think/agree?
If you create 8TB of fresh data per day but only need the backup of that day's changes why would they worry about recovering it if they are "good" 24 hours later with it all being lost? All kinds of problems arise when we analyze how he is describing the problem.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@BRRABill said:
Right but the quote of can't upload 8TB a day" probably isn't accurate.
Not really, the client can't upload 8TB ever because their on a metered Internet service.
He didn't say that. And you don't need to. That's what a seed is for.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
@BRRABill said:
Right but the quote of can't upload 8TB a day" probably isn't accurate.
Not really, the client can't upload 8TB ever because their on a metered Internet service.
He didn't say that. And you don't need to. That's what a seed is for.
Sure he did, more or less
NOTE: I would prefer to stay away from cloud backups as the companies internet connection is metered and uploading 8TB of data every day would cost us a fortune. They could upgrade to an unlimited connection but the cost is astronomical for where they are located.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@DustinB3403 said:
@BRRABill said:
Right but the quote of can't upload 8TB a day" probably isn't accurate.
Not really, the client can't upload 8TB ever because their on a metered Internet service.
He didn't say that. And you don't need to. That's what a seed is for.
Sure he did, more or less
NOTE: I would prefer to stay away from cloud backups as the companies internet connection is metered and uploading 8TB of data every day would cost us a fortune. They could upgrade to an unlimited connection but the cost is astronomical for where they are located.
Then later on he told someone that 8TB was total, not daily. He countered someone and acted like it was silly to have thought that he was generating 8TB a day.
-
He said uploading every day WOULD cost a fortune. He also said HE didn't need to do 8TB per day. So reading his own statements, his 8TB per day comment in the OP was a red herring and does not pertain to his situation.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
He said uploading every day WOULD cost a fortune. He also said HE didn't need to do 8TB per day. So reading his own statements, his 8TB per day comment in the OP was a red herring and does not pertain to his situation.
While that's all true - the fact of mentioning a rate limit and even your own proposed few hundred GB a day of changes - he would Probably still be outside his limit for just the changes.
And while he did say in the OP he needed to backup 8 TB daily, yeah I didn't think that was likely, and wasn't surprised when we corrected himself on that point. But as of yet hasn't told us what he is rate limited to, nor what his daily changes are.
Though mentioning that they delete all the old changes - yeah I'm sure that's another miscommunication as well.
-
@Dashrender said:
While that's all true - the fact of mentioning a rate limit and even your own proposed few hundred GB a day of changes - he would Probably still be outside his limit for just the changes.
Perhaps, but is it likely to be honest? He stated 8TB to throw us off for a reason. If we jump to a conclusion, maybe it is because he is biased against hosted solutions and wants to discount them out of hand but has found them to be the only reasonable solution so make the 8TB/day comment with the intent to shut down the discussion because when he checked the real numbers, it was very viable.
If the metered connection is actually a problem, he has decided to not admit that that is true. Which suggests that it likely is since he made a point of trying to stop the conversation from going there.
-
@Dashrender said:
And while he did say in the OP he needed to backup 8 TB daily, yeah I didn't think that was likely, and wasn't surprised when we corrected himself on that point. But as of yet hasn't told us what he is rate limited to, nor what his daily changes are.
Though mentioning that they delete all the old changes - yeah I'm sure that's another miscommunication as well.
All of this leads me to think that he is trying to find written, public justification for something that he has been unable to justify himself.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
And while he did say in the OP he needed to backup 8 TB daily, yeah I didn't think that was likely, and wasn't surprised when we corrected himself on that point. But as of yet hasn't told us what he is rate limited to, nor what his daily changes are.
Though mentioning that they delete all the old changes - yeah I'm sure that's another miscommunication as well.
All of this leads me to think that he is trying to find written, public justification for something that he has been unable to justify himself.
It sure smells that way, don't it?
-
@art_of_shred said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
And while he did say in the OP he needed to backup 8 TB daily, yeah I didn't think that was likely, and wasn't surprised when we corrected himself on that point. But as of yet hasn't told us what he is rate limited to, nor what his daily changes are.
Though mentioning that they delete all the old changes - yeah I'm sure that's another miscommunication as well.
All of this leads me to think that he is trying to find written, public justification for something that he has been unable to justify himself.
It sure smells that way, don't it?
Yeah. It it looks like and duck and quacks like a duck. I totally recognize that I'm doing the "jumping to reading into their intentions" thing that I get called on a lot so I'm trying not to say that he's doing this... only that that is how it comes across and someone who was trying to falsely justify a known bad solution would do it in exactly this way. This is the pattern you would look for for someone who knows that they have done the wrong thing and have a bias and are trying to subtly inject false information to lead people away from the obvious path.
Doing it up front was one thing, but not acknowledging that his info was wrong and that obviously his logic doesn't hold up means we've left the really obvious "oops, I missed that detail" excuse window.
