NAS Raid Setup for Small Business

Discussion in 'Storage & Backup' started by bcurko, Aug 29, 2013.

  1. bcurko

    bcurko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    36
    Hi WP guru's,

    I'm currently in the process of trying to prevent a huge failure in the company that I work for systems.

    Basically we have 3-4 computers which has data that is integral to the business and we need to have full images of each computer stored in a separate location so in the event of a hard drive failure we can just restore the computers image on a new hard drive.

    I've been looking at the QNAP TS-869 PRO and thinking of utilising 8X 2TB Red WD Drives in RAID 6 for the redundancy and storage needs.

    Now I'm just curious what's the best way to automate the imaging of the computers in question (Acronis True Image) and then just have a program take that backup periodically as its updated on a daily basis.

    We also need to setup one drive to act as a network drive so everyone has their own folder within the gigabit network.

    What do you think is the best solution?
     
  2. GooSE

    GooSE New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    6,679
    Location:
    Sydney
    This is OCAU.

    Why wouldn't you just dedicate a folder on the RAID to this?
     
  3. Roe

    Roe Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    208
    Location:
    Spankstown 2200
    Copy and paste from WP maybe?

    Best thing to do is to move the critical data from the individual machines and have "it" live on the NAS. Then have the individuals work from the NAS. I'm not sure if the NAS your looking at supports snapshots or not but that's an option. Network recycling bin is also another option you should apply. The other thing to do is backup the NAS on a nightly backup to some form of cheaper storage like LTO3 for instance. Surely this is a must if said data is
    Roe.
     
  4. [KEi]SoVeReIgN

    [KEi]SoVeReIgN Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,566
    Location:
    Sydney
    Why not work on getting your users not to save their shit to their computers and use this new RAID storage (which you will of course duplicate elsewhere/backup)

    Sometimes the best IT solutions include user management.
     
  5. OP
    OP
    bcurko

    bcurko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    36
    Sorry for the copy and paste the internet was 404ing when I tried to post with my WP account.

    The issue isn't the users backing up, its the databases that are running on each computer.

    One has a catalogue database of all our products SKU's and information which we than upload to a dedicated server for Magento.

    Another server is running our consignments and grabbing the orders from the eBay API. It can't simply be saved , we have to clone the whole drive because too many files are changed throughout the day
     
  6. Roe

    Roe Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    208
    Location:
    Spankstown 2200
    Well acronis would be a good start and better then nothing at the moment.

    If I were you I would look at using an esxi box. You could create the vm's from the acronis backups and test them out before swapping over.

    Then you could easily schedule backups of the vm's and restore them in the event on an emergency.

    :thumbup:
     
  7. LostBenji

    LostBenji Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    6,084
    Location:
    Up a tower somewhere....
    One of these days, I have have a nasty concussion from banging my head on a wall with ideas of Off-the-shelf NAS boxes being used for enterprise.

    If data on PC's is vital, use RAID-1 mirror in PC. Easy to do on running system, if you need ask how, stop there and get a pro in.

    Use StorageCraft and enjoy the warm-n-fuzzy feeling of both full and incremental backups that are easy and fast to restore (even on different hardware or VM)

    For the money of the QNAP, a server could be built and do a lot more including VM hosting.


    P.S This thread might be better to live in here: http://forums.overclockers.com.au/forumdisplay.php?f=25
     
  8. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,153
    Location:
    Canberra
    Firstly, forget QNAP. Synology is *far* better at every price point.

    Secondly, forget Acronis - Shadowprotect is again the better product.

    Thirdly, the way i've been doing similar setup's (i.e low budget, no money/need for a server) is running 2 backups with Shadowprotect.

    A nightly image and a regular (i.e every 15 mins) incremental.

    I then do a backup on the Synology to cover the Synology OS, as well as the nightly images. I then have 2-3 portable usb drives being rotated out, so that the data is off-site.

    Fourthly, take however many drives you're going to pop into this NAS (or whitebox server), add another one and keep it on the shelf. Its a very handy insurance policy, as not all drives are necessarily good bedfellows together when you need to find a replacement 2-3 years down the track.

    SMB != Enterprise.

    Not a backup, but still a good idea if you have a "master" PC that houses say... a POS database, MYOB database or just a fileshare with company documents.

    Shadowprotect is definitely the product of choice if you don't have Tape/VM requirements.

    Strongly disagree. Just an appropriate Windows server license puts you close to NAS $, let alone server grade hardware (be it a whitebox E3 Xeon or a Dell/HP/IBM solution).

    Its no secret that storage makes up 2/3rds or more of the price of an average server (most server's these days have no real strong mhz requirements - particularly in SMB - hence you don't see 8-way xeons chewing up that budget). So that cost is basically a wash if you compare a Server vs. NAS.

    Administering and maintaining a server is also another cost that SMB generally can't afford. Every version of SBS gets "out of hand" if left alone for 12-24 months (Hi WSUS and the reporting DB's), not to mention doesn't apply the service packs.

    Any NAS worth its salt these days can be setup to send emails in case of disk or other failure to the relevant people, handle integration with UPS's, backup success/failures and other relevant information.

    There is certainly a place for Servers in some SMB, but unless the OP is hiding some pretty major requirements, a server is definitely overkill for this scenario.
     
  9. LostBenji

    LostBenji Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2007
    Messages:
    6,084
    Location:
    Up a tower somewhere....
    I can't be fucked arguing, better things to do with my time, like pulling out NAS boxes that don't perform.

    Just for kicks, I did a quick costing at retail price, 12TB of space for a system under 1200 bucks and no need for server OS either. Sell the excuses to people without a clue.
     
  10. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,153
    Location:
    Canberra
    I'll pick an argument, because you're wrong.

    $1200 bucks doesn't run 12TB of reliable storage. $1200 bucks doesn't run reliable hardware. $1200 bucks doesn't run "a lot more including VM hosting".

    Fuck $1200 barely buys 12TB of HDD's, let alone anything else. If you want to play amateur hour with businesses, running desktop OS's or FOSS that they aren't able to understand and manage themselves - i'll join in you pulling shit out, put in by cowboy IT providers who think they have a clue.
     
  11. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    42,799
    Location:
    Brisbane
    1) Grammatically incorrect
    2) Oxymoron
     
  12. davros123

    davros123 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    2,934
    actually, the way this thread is headed, it looks just like whirlpool.com.au
     
  13. Dropbear

    Dropbear Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    9,720
    Location:
    Brisbane
    absolute riotous applause.
     
  14. OP
    OP
    bcurko

    bcurko Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Messages:
    36
    Hi guys sorry for the delayed reply, works been all over the place.

    We ended up getting two NAS setups from mwave with the seagate NAS drives for $677 each unit including two 3TB Seagate NAS Drives.

    Now my boss wants to have all the computers backed up not the OS more just files/folders. Probably about 1-5GB Per Computer, we have around 20 pcs so is shadow protect still the most cost effective option for multiple computers or should we be just looking at copying/pasting everyday with task scheduler.

    I apologise for the double post the adsl at work timed out when I submitted the whirpool thread and I didn't realize it had been submitted..

    Thanks for all the advice so far, we've setup both NAS enclosures in Raid 1 :)
     
  15. MrSnuffy

    MrSnuffy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    Hobart
    NAS boxes fill many peoples storage requirements just fine... Sure they don't perform if you ask too much of them, but dumb generalisations are dumb.

    SMB != enterprise
    12TB of reliable storage != $1200 (let alone the server + OS license)


    What NSanity said....

    PS - LOL@Elvis
     
  16. rainwulf

    rainwulf Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,261
    Location:
    bris.qld.aus
    Stop storing databases on single drives...
     
  17. Swathe

    Swathe (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    2,509
    Location:
    Rockhampton
    Another vote for Shadow protect here, it's simply brilliant IMO.
     
  18. glasswindow

    glasswindow Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    Messages:
    31
    + 1 for Shadow Protect, the thing is a god send.

    Shadow protect does not do file level backup it does block level backup (aka the entire disk).

    With this requirement the cheapest solution would be to have the 5-10 GB (were possible) stored on a central system then run Shadow Protect on that device to the backup NAS. The other systems running the database app's that can not be moved get Shadow Protect desktop on them. The single storage device will cut down the SP licencing.

    Kinda getting close to requiring a server with that setup tho.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: