Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?
-
@Pete-S said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
And to take it a bit further. What will happen if the backup is truly lost? There is a dollar amount attached to that problem.
The dollar amount is what needs to be calculated. It's the entire front half of the conversation that I believe @Jimmy9008 has skipped.
Knowing what a failure costs, helps a business to know what they need to spend to protect from that outage, and if it's worth the spend.
-
@Pete-S said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I'd do 3 arrays of 8 x 8TB 3.5" SATA enterprise drives on software RAID 6. That's about 150TB. If it's not enough just go with 4 arrays instead.
That's just a complex RAID 60. Still extremely risky, like crazy risky, Rebuild times would still be in weeks, with rebuild success rather low.
RAID 10 protects you against both the URE and nearly all drive failure risks.
And with such small arrays, he'll struggle to get to capacity. At 32 disks, he's likely way slower and way more risky than a single RAID 10.
If you are going to go this path, it's RAID 60. But it's not a risk I'd be happy explaining that I was willing to take.
-
@Pete-S said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Time to rebuild a 8TB drive at 100 MB/s is 8000000/100=80000s=22 hours. That's nothing.
That's not reality. RAID 6 rebuild on 8TB is weeks, often months. 100MB/s is not the rebuild speed. You'd have to anticipate at least 2-3 weeks for a rebuild to happen.
-
So, disregarding the fact that this seems to be a bit of a fool's errand or a case of being set up for failure..... something like this might work from a hw perspective https://www.45drives.com/products/storinator-q30-configurations.php
I gave up on reading all of the comments after a while, but has anyone touched on the target getting bogged down with all of the simultaneous backup sessions running?
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
-
@Pete-S said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Software raid won't need a raid controller and has very low CPU and RAM requirements on HDD arrays - if you use a reasonable file system.
File system does not interact with the RAID array. RAID doesn't even know if it has a file system.
-
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
So, disregarding the fact that this seems to be a bit of a fool's errand or a case of being set up for failure..... something like this might work from a hw perspective https://www.45drives.com/products/storinator-q30-configurations.php
Those are never meant for SMBs to use, those are RAIN cluster nodes. Incredibly risky in a RAID configuration. BB never meant for that design to be used outside of a disposable node, massive cluster setup. It's not a mistake on BB's part, it is SMBs misapplying knowledge from another field, or in the case of 45drives, a vendor preying on SMBs not knowing better. I've had to rescue companies that made this mistake with much smaller arrays.
https://smbitjournal.com/2016/10/smbs-must-stop-looking-to-backblaze-for-guidance/
-
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I gave up on reading all of the comments after a while, but has anyone touched on the target getting bogged down with all of the simultaneous backup sessions running?
No, as there is no information about the use case, we don't have any idea what kind of load it will experience.
-
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
-
@Pete-S said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
And to take it a bit further. What will happen if the backup is truly lost? There is a dollar amount attached to that problem.
From what we gathered, no. There is no business logic behind the decision, it's a purely political situation for everything from the budget, to the needs, to the tech.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
-
@Pete-S said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
RAID10 makes no difference if that is what you mean. You can have a disc failure on rebuild and then you have nothing.
But you are way less likely to have one, and the bigger risk of UREs isn't there. Yes, it's a numbers game, RAID 10 has better numbers (at higher cost).
-
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
Better than Zmanda? Definitely.
Nothing to miss, we never discuss it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
Better than Zmanda? Definitely.
Nothing to miss, we never discuss it.
I mean, Veeam free being a requirement.
-
@Pete-S said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
I would use the arrays as individuals so you can take one of them out of commission if you like and run backups on the others instead. Maybe even put it on two servers instead of one.
That's true, there IS a value to splitting up arrays. But there is also complexity and a loss of speed. Pros and cons. Multiple servers would be really tough, as the chassis is a bit part of his expenses.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
Better than Zmanda? Definitely.
Nothing to miss, we never discuss it.
I mean, Veeam free being a requirement.
Yes, you must have missed it. Veeam AGENT Free is a requirement.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
Better than Zmanda? Definitely.
Nothing to miss, we never discuss it.
I mean, Veeam free being a requirement.
Yes, you must have missed it. Veeam AGENT Free is a requirement.
Can you confirm, I know it was mentioned, but I thought it was mentioned only because it was free. Not a mandate that it be used for any other reason than the cost to acquire it.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
Better than Zmanda? Definitely.
Nothing to miss, we never discuss it.
I mean, Veeam free being a requirement.
Yes, you must have missed it. Veeam AGENT Free is a requirement.
Can you confirm, I know it was mentioned, but I thought it was mentioned only because it was free. Not a mandate that it be used for any other reason than the cost to acquire it.
He definitely said twice that it was handed down as a mandate. It was never something up for consideration, it just wasn't part of the original post.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@Pete-S said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
Time to rebuild a 8TB drive at 100 MB/s is 8000000/100=80000s=22 hours. That's nothing.
That's not reality. RAID 6 rebuild on 8TB is weeks, often months. 100MB/s is not the rebuild speed. You'd have to anticipate at least 2-3 weeks for a rebuild to happen.
BS.
OK, let me clarify that. If you take the array out of production it's a realistic number. BTDT. Which you can if you have split arrays and don't stripe it all. Also a little logic is needed on where the backups go.
-
Ah it's here.
@Jimmy9008 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
How are you determining the amount of storage that will be needed?
I've been given the target by another team, so that is out of my hands. The rest of the company use B&R, but they do not plan on introducing this to UK side until 2019 (sometime in 2020). So we have been told to use up to 15k to get ourselves backed up until then using the Veeam Agent Free Edition, then in 2020 we will be incorporated. Out of my hands, but is what it is.
Makes sense with what you say about the backup server and the storage behind that server/attached to the backup server. But thats not where we are here until 2020.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@DustinB3403 said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@scottalanmiller said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
@notverypunny said in Raid10, must use or another Raid limits?:
If we're talking about keeping the software side of things free, would amanda / zmanda be an appropriate solution?
I think UrBackup is better there, but that's beside the point. Veeam Windows Agent is a requirement that can't be reconsidered. So it is what it is.
It is? I must've missed that in this conversation.
Better than Zmanda? Definitely.
Nothing to miss, we never discuss it.
I mean, Veeam free being a requirement.
Yes, you must have missed it. Veeam AGENT Free is a requirement.
My takeaway was that the free agent was the proposed solution, not necessarily a requirement....
.... going back to the "planning" that got us here, either I'm underestimating the capabilities of the 2020 introduction of a veeam server or someone thinks that they'll be able to fire up a server in a year's time and point it at the existing backups and say "these are yours to manage now".... which seriously defeats the point of putting something like a "real" veeam server in play that takes backups at the hypervisor level even if it can ingest the existing data and take over managing the backups.... "Planning" along these lines is the only reason I can think of the veeam agent being a hard requirement
... OK you found the required part while I was typing this up
