Storage question



  • Hey Guys

    new arround here,
    Already did alot of reading πŸ™‚ and learned alot.

    I have a customer who asked my help.
    they are a SMB marketing, creative agency and deal with lots of designer files. (big graphic files)

    current setup:
    They have arround 25 employees
    Mixed environment (80% mac , 20% windows)
    They use dropbox for filesharing and its over 4 TB of data. (displayed in the admin console)

    they experienced alot of growth the last 12 months.
    the storage went up with 1TB the last 6 monts

    the dropbox isn't sufficient enought (slow - downloading,uploadig - internet outage)

    what has been proposed :
    A windows AD server (only for authentication)
    6TB usable storage
    Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disks
    backup will be to another location via rsync over VPN

    i'm not really convinced about it.
    what i think:
    use the windows server as storage
    the synology as internal backup

    also not sure about the drive size and count (for future growth)

    what do you guys think?
    thx!



  • First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least πŸ˜‰ It's been a year since your last post.



  • First question would be.... this seems like a huge change, does it make sense? If they already like the Dropbox style of work, why not continue with that? What if they moved to NextCloud or something like that that can run in house for super fast speeds, but can be easily backed up externally and would not change how things work or incur loads of new costs?



  • Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    what has been proposed :
    A windows AD server (only for authentication)
    6TB usable storage
    Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disks

    Why Windows AD?

    First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
    Second... why Windows AD? No Windows today, why introduce Windows Server licensing and CALs? That's a big expense that you could just skip. A Linux server will do that for free, like NethServer. But your Synology that you proposed does it, too! So you'd not need to add another server OR the server licenses OR the CALs OR the cost of managing and maintaining all of that and tracking users and so forth.

    6TB... seems reasonable. We don't have much to go on there other than 50% growth.

    Synology with 4x 4TB will give you 8TB usable.



  • @elegast Being that they have no AD currently, a SAMBA4 implementation of AD would work and would avoid the major licensing headaches. Nethserver, Zentyal or CentOS implementations would be free with optional support. They're small enough they may not even need the authentication piece, which would mean no need for a local server box.

    A NAS with sufficient drive space could be all they really need. I think the Synology @scottalanmiller recommended will even sync with Dropbox (just remember that a sync is not a backup.)



  • Considering how slow the old system was, a small server with just two drives will be much faster. RAID 1 with 8TB drives would work. Obviously RAID 10 with 4TB drives will be faster.



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    current setup:
    They have arround 25 employees
    Mixed environment (80% mac , 20% windows)
    They use dropbox for filesharing and its over 4 TB of data. (displayed in the admin console)
    they experienced alot of growth the last 12 months.
    the storage went up with 1TB the last 6 monts

    I don't see any need for Windows Server here what so ever. I wouldn't even consider that at this point unless there's a lot more to it you aren't sharing with us.

    To cover your storage needs for the next 2-3 years (well, as best as you can plan for while keeping costs down), I wouldn't put money in to any storage solution that yields less than 8 TB of usable storage.

    I'd seriously consider something like Synology. Going by the info you gave, that at quick glance seems like the best type of option for you. Also, as travishdh1 said, I can confirm they do sync with Dropbox.



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    the synology as internal backup

    As for back up, you could get a less expensive NAS to keep a backup of your main data. Plus some super cheap S3 storage would do as a cold archive in addition to a cheap backup NAS.



  • Your growth is my only concern. I'd consider a 4 bay NAS with two 8 TB drives, then you can expand that to four total 8 TB drives when you get full (though I suppose that might require a backup and restore of the data).

    I agree - no AD today - why do you need it?

    Because you are using Dropbox today, NextCloud with the sync client might be good for you. Though the sync client does open you to crypto malware attacks.

    As for backups - Two of these boxes, one syncing to the other, and then syncing to Amazon Glacier would probably do you just perfect.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least πŸ˜‰ It's been a year since your last post.

    Thx!
    yeah, i know; its been while πŸ™‚

    @DustinB3403 said in Storage question:

    Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?

    whats terrestrial based backup ?

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    @elegast said in Storage question:

    what has been proposed :
    A windows AD server (only for authentication)
    6TB usable storage
    Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disks

    Why Windows AD?

    First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
    Second... why Windows AD?

    AD was Demanded by the CTO...
    i thought it was good to use the windows server as file server and back it up to the synology

    we will go for an expandable synology rs station.
    if the need is there we can put in an extra chassis. 4x4 TB in raid10

    will suggest an extra locallly backup target.

    thanks for the advice.



  • @elegast terrestrial means that it runs on a telephone pole or underground, non-terrestrial means that it would be running over over radio signal or over satellite or point to point service.



  • what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?
    I understand that running it locally has a speed advantage for internal users.
    But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow sideΒ°



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?

    It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.



  • @travisdh1 said in Storage question:

    @elegast said in Storage question:

    what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?

    It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.

    in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    @travisdh1 said in Storage question:

    @elegast said in Storage question:

    what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?

    It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.

    in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?

    Essentially yes. It's a self hosted version of those services. Business wise it can make sense if the user agreements for those services are not acceptable.



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow sideΒ°

    But not nearly as slow as using a Windows file server over VPN for remote users. It works much better for that.



  • @travisdh1 said in Storage question:

    @elegast said in Storage question:

    @travisdh1 said in Storage question:

    @elegast said in Storage question:

    what are the advantages of running a nextcloud instance?

    It's not speed so much as universal availability. All the files, and possibly lots more functionality, from anywhere with any device, all done securely.

    in comparison to google drive/onedrive or dropbox ?

    Essentially yes. It's a self hosted version of those services. Business wise it can make sense if the user agreements for those services are not acceptable.

    And it is free, and gets the speed of local bandwidth when working on the LAN.



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least πŸ˜‰ It's been a year since your last post.

    Thx!
    yeah, i know; its been while πŸ™‚

    @DustinB3403 said in Storage question:

    Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?

    whats terrestrial based backup ?

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    @elegast said in Storage question:

    what has been proposed :
    A windows AD server (only for authentication)
    6TB usable storage
    Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disks

    Why Windows AD?

    First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
    Second... why Windows AD?

    AD was Demanded by the CTO...

    Seems an odd person to be demanding infrastructure design. Why does the engineering department get any kind of say like that in IT?



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    i thought it was good to use the windows server as file server and back it up to the synology

    It might be, but from the sound of it, probably not. Windows Fileservers certainly have a place, but you are coming from a situation where one doesn't exist and that would eliminate most deployments (same for AD, rolling out these kinds of services new in this day and age should be met with a critical eye - both have their place but in a small shop without that technical debt already in place, I'd be extremely cautious about making such a deep, long term commitment to that cost.)

    Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?



  • @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    @elegast said in Storage question:

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    First: Welcome to MangoLassi. Or to posting, at least πŸ˜‰ It's been a year since your last post.

    Thx!
    yeah, i know; its been while πŸ™‚

    @DustinB3403 said in Storage question:

    Why not a non-terrestrial based backup internet service and cloud storage that operates faster?

    whats terrestrial based backup ?

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    @elegast said in Storage question:

    what has been proposed :
    A windows AD server (only for authentication)
    6TB usable storage
    Synology nas for storage - 4 bays - 4TB disks

    Why Windows AD?

    First... why AD at all? Is that really a good way to go? It might be, but let's start with determining if that has value.
    Second... why Windows AD?

    AD was Demanded by the CTO...

    Seems an odd person to be demanding infrastructure design. Why does the engineering department get any kind of say like that in IT?

    Not in a company that doesn't have a CIO. Not sure if that's the case here, but seems pretty likely.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?

    As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.

    If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.

    But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.

    Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.



  • @elegast said in Storage question:

    But for remote workers it will be slower i guess (if the upload speed of the internet connection is on the slow sideΒ°

    Your remote workers will have this issues regardless of NextCloud, DropBox, or GoogleDrive. If their internet connection is slow, then their performance across all of these services will be slow.


  • Banned

    Does NextCloud not have a sync client which sits on the client? @Dashrender



  • @Dashrender said in Storage question:

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?

    As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.

    If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.

    But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.

    Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.

    Except this ignores the alternative access that NextCloud, Sharepoint, Alfresco, etc gives you that you don't have with Windows File Servers.

    WebDAV is already setup by default in NextCloud, they have a client based sync client, you can set it up for versioning and version control so that things like ransomware is less of a threat.



  • @Dashrender said in Storage question:

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?

    As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.

    If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.

    But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.

    Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.

    Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.

    Not sure how that is ignoring.



  • @JaredBusch said in Storage question:

    @Dashrender said in Storage question:

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?

    As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.

    If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.

    But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.

    Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.

    Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.

    Not sure how that is ignoring.

    That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.



  • @Dashrender said in Storage question:

    @JaredBusch said in Storage question:

    @Dashrender said in Storage question:

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?

    As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.

    If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.

    But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.

    Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.

    Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.

    Not sure how that is ignoring.

    That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.

    Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.



  • @coliver said in Storage question:

    @Dashrender said in Storage question:

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?

    As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.

    If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.

    But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.

    Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.

    Except this ignores the alternative access that NextCloud, Sharepoint, Alfresco, etc gives you that you don't have with Windows File Servers.

    WebDAV is already setup by default in NextCloud, they have a client based sync client, you can set it up for versioning and version control so that things like ransomware is less of a threat.

    Sure NextCloud, Sharepoint, etc do offer both webdav and the sync clients as well as the web interface.

    But the OP has already mentioned issues with OD and file sync, and all file sync solutions I've ever used have that same problem. JB's even posted about the occasional oC file sync issue - perhaps NC has fixed this, who knows?

    But File sync does suffer the performance issues across the board based upon upload/download links.

    And while if you enable it, versioning can save you from crypto malware problems, but rolling back massive changes requires a one at a time file rollback, the last time we talked about it (perhaps it can be scripted, but if so, then we have to make sure it's coded correctly to prevent end users from being able to delete/remove previous versions - just sayin').



  • @JaredBusch said in Storage question:

    @Dashrender said in Storage question:

    @JaredBusch said in Storage question:

    @Dashrender said in Storage question:

    @scottalanmiller said in Storage question:

    Going to a Windows Fileserver will step you "backwards" to a different era. You'll change how people work, introduce new (old) risks and give up some huge flexibility for remote workers. That's fine if the benefits outweigh those losses. But... what benefits did you see pushing you to that solution?

    As much as I want to agree with Scott on this - I simply can't. Using web only services for files sux at best, is horrible at worst.

    If you can get something the directly integrates into your applications like SharePoint does with MS Office products, it can be fairly usable.

    But the NextCloud folks have all but ignored this integration - you can read their responses yourself in the AMA we had here a few weeks ago.

    Moving people completely off their local type access will take true dedication from management, the likes of which we rarely see.

    Don't know what crack pipe you are smoking, but they clearly said during the AMA that they had no idea about that office integration, but agreed it was nice.

    Not sure how that is ignoring.

    That is ignoring it - they had no idea about it.

    Not knowing about a feature of an application that they do not even work with is not ignoring.

    On one hand I see what you are saying - but not being aware of a feature in an application for which many people would be using their product to store upon is definitely not good.

    I.e. a general use of NC is to replace Windows Files shares, what do you store on Windows File shares? MS Office files. What uses MS Office files - oh yeah, MS Office.

    So from my POV, they provided the sync client and called it a day. I suppose I can kinda give them a pass, the sync client assuming it works well makes working with MS Office probably pretty easy, things look like they are local files. Though I'm not sure how they deal with huge volumes where you don't want them synced, but only want remote access, like old school network shares.


Log in to reply