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).
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.
-
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I guess my thinking was by making it seem "free" as opposed to a trial level, it's just marketing.
Well it is not limited in functionality, nor in time, nor in use cases. It's totally functional for its size tier and is in no way whatsoever a trial. And for many (most?) SMBs of a smaller size, it's more than the amount of actual data that they need to protect. It doesn't "seem" free, it's very much actually free and in no sense a trial.
That's like saying that getting a small ice cream cone free is a "trial" and not actually free just because it's smaller than you want to get for free.
-
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
Maybe there would be usable level like some products have for very SMB to use and learn and talk about to create buzz.
And there is! What more do you need? Why do you need more than this? Let's start there. How much data do you need to protect?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
I guess my thinking was by making it seem "free" as opposed to a trial level, it's just marketing.
Well it is not limited in functionality, nor in time, nor in use cases. It's totally functional for its size tier and is in no way whatsoever a trial. And for many (most?) SMBs of a smaller size, it's more than the amount of actual data that they need to protect. It doesn't "seem" free, it's very much actually free and in no sense a trial.
That's like saying that getting a small ice cream cone free is a "trial" and not actually free just because it's smaller than you want to get for free.
You think 25GB is sufficient for backup?
Maybe, maybe if you are just backing up data, and without a lot of backup revisions. (Please, no need to argue about the plusses/minuses of this strategy.
) -
@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?:
I guess my thinking was by making it seem "free" as opposed to a trial level, it's just marketing.
Well it is not limited in functionality, nor in time, nor in use cases. It's totally functional for its size tier and is in no way whatsoever a trial. And for many (most?) SMBs of a smaller size, it's more than the amount of actual data that they need to protect. It doesn't "seem" free, it's very much actually free and in no sense a trial.
That's like saying that getting a small ice cream cone free is a "trial" and not actually free just because it's smaller than you want to get for free.
You think 25GB is sufficient for backup?
Maybe, maybe if you are just backing up data, and without a lot of backup revisions. (Please, no need to argue about the plusses/minuses of this strategy.
)who said anything about backup? it might be sufficient as a data store. We have around 30 GB of normal data... so it could replace a fileserver if we got down low enough.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
Maybe there would be usable level like some products have for very SMB to use and learn and talk about to create buzz.
And there is! What more do you need? Why do you need more than this? Let's start there. How much data do you need to protect?
Well, I back up the entire server, as I am sure most SMB would do. (Again, I know we'd had a discussion here on ML many times about why this is not what you do.)
Anyway, the server files alone are probably more than 25GB, not even considering the data.
-
@BRRABill said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
You think 25GB is sufficient for backup?
For tons of companies, yes, absolutely. See my article on that just today. It's certainly way more than NTG needs.
-
@Dashrender said in Why Choose AetherStore Over a NAS?:
@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?:
I guess my thinking was by making it seem "free" as opposed to a trial level, it's just marketing.
Well it is not limited in functionality, nor in time, nor in use cases. It's totally functional for its size tier and is in no way whatsoever a trial. And for many (most?) SMBs of a smaller size, it's more than the amount of actual data that they need to protect. It doesn't "seem" free, it's very much actually free and in no sense a trial.
That's like saying that getting a small ice cream cone free is a "trial" and not actually free just because it's smaller than you want to get for free.
You think 25GB is sufficient for backup?
Maybe, maybe if you are just backing up data, and without a lot of backup revisions. (Please, no need to argue about the plusses/minuses of this strategy.
)who said anything about backup? it might be sufficient as a data store. We have around 30 GB of normal data... so it could replace a fileserver if we got down low enough.
Scott did.
I asked, and he said it's primarily used for backup.
That is the scenario we are discussing.
