Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?
-
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
-
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
-
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
True, but it would take multiple, low value machines being taken to do that whereas a NAS is a single high value device. Which is more likely to be stolen? I don't really know. Depends on the environment. I've known places to have things like servers stolen, but not desktops. Laptops yes, but not desktops. Typically desktops are not worth it to fence. And you'd need to get all of the copies of the backups, which are potentially spread out to different rooms, offices, or whatever. Clearly something to consider, though.
But a single NAS or pair of NAS would be easily identifiable as things to steal or damage. I'd guess, even with more security, that centralized backups are more at risk in average situations.
-
If you have an office with just four desktops, and you use all four for AetherStore, and they all sit next to each other in a common room. Yup, that's likely some bad security of the backups.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
True, but it would take multiple, low value machines being taken to do that whereas a NAS is a single high value device. Which is more likely to be stolen? I don't really know. Depends on the environment. I've known places to have things like servers stolen, but not desktops. Laptops yes, but not desktops. Typically desktops are not worth it to fence. And you'd need to get all of the copies of the backups, which are potentially spread out to different rooms, offices, or whatever. Clearly something to consider, though.
But a single NAS or pair of NAS would be easily identifiable as things to steal or damage. I'd guess, even with more security, that centralized backups are more at risk in average situations.
Right but with the server, it's usually in a secured room or not even on site, where as the actual desktops/laptops aren't usually secured and are out in the open (depending on what type of office).
-
But I'll take an example client... they have hundreds of machines spread out all over the building. Some are in the warehouse - high risk, skip those. They are also old and on slow networks. But loads of executives, lawyers, accountants, engineers and such that have nice, newer workstations with big disks that are in individually locked offices. Those are low risk and the desktops are very separate from each other as risks go.
-
Right I mean we can hypothesize about anything. My point was just that's a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. Esp if you have different types of data replicated in differently (if you can do that).
To me it seems like a niche market. A place that's small enough to not have a real NAS (appliance or built) or tape, but not using SaaS. If you're big enough to have a NAS/tape (and real offsite backups), I don't see how this is a benefit.
-
Also, not that this isn't a cool product. It's really interesting.
-
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
Right I mean we can hypothesize about anything. My point was just that's a factor that needs to be taken into consideration. Esp if you have different types of data replicated in differently (if you can do that).
You can, if you split them into different pools.
-
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
If you're big enough to have a NAS/tape (and real offsite backups), I don't see how this is a benefit.
Because you have to be big enough for it to be a tape library with a robot or tape remains incredibly cumbersome. And the point here was that it many cases it might be superior to a NAS. So big enough to have a NAS and "should chose a NAS over it" are different things. I was asked why someone would chose AetherStore over a NAS for a small office, so I was demonstrating.
Is it for everyone? Of course not, nothing is. But I think that it has really solid use cases. Lots of shops really do have loads of excess hard drive capacity sitting around the building that can be used for loads of archival, backup or other capacity for very cheap.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@Dashrender said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@Dashrender said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
OK I just pulled that out of my rear.. but if not for some huge amount of cache on the main node, I'm not sure what you're driving at?
If you have a four node system and four time replication, that means that everything is on the head node - it won't go out to other nodes for other reads at all. If you have four time replication on eight nodes, half of all reads (all things being equal) half of your reads will come from the head node. No matter what, it's significant.
Sure, but these numbers seem pretty low. But maybe I'm missing something. I would anticipate that that those using something like this would have more like 20+ workstations. But of course, it is just as usable at the 4/8 node count as well.
But looking at the 20+ node (40ish in my case) now you're head node will have only a tiny fraction of the data on it.
Overall I think that that is exceedingly uncommon. Why would you choose the head node to be one with so little free storage, for one thing?
Why would you think this was uncommon? The biggest initial issue in the first alpha/beta cycle was dealing with a VM head node with no storage at all beyond the OS partition. I am not going to buy or dedicate a machine with a large drive as a head node just to get increased performances. That is not the promise of this product.
After that, it was the horrible speeds.
I still have not used it again because the Alpha/Beta promised at MangoCon has never emerged.
I love the idea of this product as a way to not buy a NAS for backups.
But I cannot use something that does not work.
-
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
That was part of my original question, in that there is no remote backup.
@scottalanmiller mentioend rmeote stores, but don't they have to be on the same LAN?
-
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
That was part of my original question, in that there is no remote backup.
@scottalanmiller mentioend rmeote stores, but don't they have to be on the same LAN?
Does LAN over VPN count?
-
@Dashrender said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
That was part of my original question, in that there is no remote backup.
@scottalanmiller mentioend rmeote stores, but don't they have to be on the same LAN?
Does LAN over VPN count?
Definitely did not have to be on the same LAN. I had test nodes across an IPSEC VPN tunnel on a different subnet.
-
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
That was part of my original question, in that there is no remote backup.
How do you solve that with a NAS? There is no remote backup there either.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
That was part of my original question, in that there is no remote backup.
How do you solve that with a NAS? There is no remote backup there either.
I'm not saying there is. I'm just saying what he mentioned was part of my original question.
And you really aren't backing up the nodes, you'd be backing up the mounted store, correct?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
If this is the official pricing, I am wondering if the 25GB lower "free" end should be higher. That basically knocks anyone doing backups out of the equation.
That would be the idea. The free tier is really for testing and really basic stuff. If you want production backups, paying for support is probably a good idea.
Keep in mind that anyone doing DevOps style backups, 25GB is enormous.
I guess my thinking was by making it seem "free" as opposed to a trial level, it's just marketing.
Maybe there would be usable level like some products have for very SMB to use and learn and talk about to create buzz.
Not arguing about it ... just pondering aloud.
-
@Dashrender said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
That was part of my original question, in that there is no remote backup.
@scottalanmiller mentioend rmeote stores, but don't they have to be on the same LAN?
Does LAN over VPN count?
Not officially as you don't have solid control over what data goes to what node. Sure you could reduce node count to force it. But that is so awkward.
The problem here is that we are asking AetherStore to do something that the alternative cannot do. A NAS needs to replicate to another NAS in another location to do this. AetherStore can do that as well using the same mechanisms. Or to a NAS in the offsite location if you want.
-
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@stacksofplates said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I think the biggest point I see is around security. With a backup server or multiple backup servers the data is contained to those machines wherever you decide to put them. It seems like going backwards having data shared locally on workstations. We make it a point to have nothing on the local workstations except what is needed for authentication and mounting of the real stuff.
Heavily encrypted on the workstations. The individual workstations have no access to the data. And if you have more machines than you have redundancy, the data on the individual machines are incomplete, even when encrypted.
I guess my point is, if the right machines are stolen (since they are likely to have the least security), there is no backup.
That was part of my original question, in that there is no remote backup.
How do you solve that with a NAS? There is no remote backup there either.
I'm not saying there is. I'm just saying what he mentioned was part of my original question.
And you really aren't backing up the nodes, you'd be backing up the mounted store, correct?
You'd back up the storage, yes. Through the head unit. The nodes cannot access the data on themselves. To you it is just a SAN. That there is data on the nodes isn't relevant once you are "using" the system.
