Storage question
-
Hey Guys
new arround here,
Already did alot of reading
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 montsthe 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 VPNi'm not really convinced about it.
what i think:
use the windows server as storage
the synology as internal backupalso 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
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 disksWhy 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 montsI 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
It's been a year since your last post.Thx!
yeah, i know; its been while@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 disksWhy 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 synologywe will go for an expandable synology rs station.
if the need is there we can put in an extra chassis. 4x4 TB in raid10will 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 side° -
@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 side°
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
It's been a year since your last post.Thx!
yeah, i know; its been while@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 disksWhy 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?
