Trying to find an optimal solution for a client with various problems!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Ambarishrh said:
Now, they've asked me to setup a fail proof solution to make sure that even if one server stops working, they want to continue to work. The obvious answer was to setup an additional DC and move this data to a network drive (DROBO!).
How is that an obvious answer? Isn't it the opposite? It would take all the problems that you have today and just make them worse without solving any?
How does adding a second DC adds more problems? The issue the client have now is the single point of failure. Adding a second server with the file sync solved this issue rite?
-
@Ambarishrh said:
How does adding a second DC adds more problems? The issue the client have now is the single point of failure. Adding a second server with the file sync solved this issue rite?
Because you are adding an inverted pyramid of doom with the point of the pyramid being even MORE fragile than what you have now. So MUCH less reliable not just a little less.
You wouldn't reduce the single points of failure, you would be making the one point of failure less reliable and adding additional points of failure. More failure, zero protection.
It's not the second DC that causes the issue, it is how it is added (Drobo SAN.) DCs should never, even when they are in massive environment, have external storage. When you do that you are undermining their built in reliability. Even if you have SANs, you make sure that your DCs don't talk to them.
DCs need NOTHING to make them highly reliable. You never sync a DC, you never put it on external storage. You just have two and keep them on local storage. DCs automatically make themselves highly available with no additional interaction.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Adding a second server with the file sync solved this issue rite?
Nothing involving file sync should be involved when talking about DCs.
-
@scottalanmiller Seems like there was a confusion. I had 2 scenarios;
1 adding a second DC and keeping the files on the internal drives of both servers, sync between the servers.
- Adding a Drobo. this was considering the fact that Drobo gives additional protection for the storage.
In this case, i am thinking of having an additional DC with an internal storage and DFS enabled so all gets synced between the two servers. Does it sounds ok ?
-
@Ambarishrh said:
1 adding a second DC and keeping the files on the internal drives of both servers, sync between the servers.
This should never happen. Never. Two DCs, let them take care of themselves.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
- Adding a Drobo. this was considering the fact that Drobo gives additional protection for the storage.
Adding a Drobo would take away protection, not add it. I'm not sure what you are imaging a Drobo is, but it definitely does not do what you are picturing. It's the opposite.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
In this case, i am thinking of having an additional DC with an internal storage and DFS enabled so all gets synced between the two servers. Does it sounds ok ?
DFS is for file serving, DC is for Active Directory. The two should not overlap.
I don't think that DFS is an option with things like QuickBooks.
-
I am talking about the hdd protection on Drobo. Was thinking if i have the data on Drobo, single hard drive failures can be prevented.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
I am talking about the hdd protection on Drobo. Was thinking if i have the data on Drobo, single hard drive failures can be prevented.
Yes, it has very basic RAID. Are you suggesting you are running servers with no RAID at all?
-
So keeping the current AD, what could be the optimal solution that you recommend?
-
@Ambarishrh said:
I am talking about the hdd protection....
This is weird terminology. When talking about this, be sure to call it RAID generically or RAID 6 specifically. Just calling it "HDD Protection" makes it sound like something unique.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
So keeping the current AD, what could be the optimal solution that you recommend?
Add a second server. There is one and only one model for AD DCs. You always run them with local storage, you just add more of them. You never "do" anything to make them reliable. Anything you do will just break the reliability that is built in. You never let them talk to external storage, never let them sync, never do anything special. They are HA natively, just have two of them on completely different servers.
-
Yes, the first server they have is not even a real server, its a high grade desktop machine with good cooling, but no RAID. I initially suggested a Dell server, but since they didnt had much budget, the next option was to have a high end tower machine which actually worked well for 3 years.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Yes, the first server they have is not even a real server, its a high grade desktop machine with good cooling, but no RAID.
Okay, we should have led off with "they are running from a desktop" to make this all more clear.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Ambarishrh said:
So keeping the current AD, what could be the optimal solution that you recommend?
Add a second server. There is one and only one model for AD DCs. You always run them with local storage, you just add more of them. You never "do" anything to make them reliable. Anything you do will just break the reliability that is built in. You never let them talk to external storage, never let them sync, never do anything special. They are HA natively, just have two of them on completely different servers.
Ok adding second DC solves the AD connectivity part, user login etc. Now what about the files that the users access on daily basis? Quickbooks is one, apart from that they have other files as well (documents, images etc)
-
@Ambarishrh said:
I initially suggested a Dell server, but since they didnt had much budget, the next option was to have a high end tower machine which actually worked well for 3 years.
This is silly, how can they afford to pay for you to talk to them if they are so far below the home line? Something is seriously wrong. Feels like they don't feel that they are a real business and aren't taking their data seriously, even to a home level. Why are you there and why are they paying for you? Something is very wrong.
And a Dell server is cheaper than a Drobo. So that's more layers of wrong.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Ambarishrh said:
Yes, the first server they have is not even a real server, its a high grade desktop machine with good cooling, but no RAID.
Okay, we should have led off with "they are running from a desktop" to make this all more clear.
My bad, should've mentioned that specifically in the beginning. Personally I would love to go with servers, RAID and all those which i know will protect them, but not all clients will have the budget to do so
-
@Ambarishrh said:
Ok adding second DC solves the AD connectivity part, user login etc. Now what about the files that the users access on daily basis? Quickbooks is one, apart from that they have other files as well (documents, images etc)
They made the decision that money is no object when they bought QuickBooks. Using QB means you've got money to burn and not a care in the world because this isn't serious software. There is no enterprise means of backing it up, syncing it up or using it like business software. This is a toy. An expensive toy that is good for showing off how much money you can throw away.
There are free alternatives that are much better. To do QB in a highly reliable way requires a full fault tolerant system that Windows can't effectively do. You need something like Linux with DRBD to pull that off and you are into a range these guys aren't remotely considering.
You have a client with a complete mismatch of values. It sounds like these people have lost their minds.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Ambarishrh said:
I initially suggested a Dell server, but since they didnt had much budget, the next option was to have a high end tower machine which actually worked well for 3 years.
This is silly, how can they afford to pay for you to talk to them if they are so far below the home line? Something is seriously wrong. Feels like they don't feel that they are a real business and aren't taking their data seriously, even to a home level. Why are you there and why are they paying for you? Something is very wrong.
And a Dell server is cheaper than a Drobo. So that's more layers of wrong.
Well, they started as small company, just growing. Their plans for next year is to move to a new office, have better Infrastructure, as they are well aware of the risks but with the current budgets they cant afford to have more than that.
-
@Ambarishrh said:
My bad, should've mentioned that specifically in the beginning. Personally I would love to go with servers, RAID and all those which i know will protect them, but not all clients will have the budget to do so
That sounds pretty silly. I truly don't believe any business can't afford RAID. Not a real business that can afford to talk to an IT pro. RAID is home level stuff, if it even comes up as a question in a business, walk away, they aren't staying in business for long. We've literally put more money into this conversation on here about how silly they are than you are saying they are willing to invest in protecting their data.
And all of the things that you are suggesting, like QB and Drobo, are horrible ideas and cost far more than doing the right thing (just having RAID.) So there is no question, it seems, that these guys have far, far more than enough money. They just don't care about their data. Or else Drobo and QB couldn't be options, nor could second servers or anything else. None of this makes sense.
