Disaster Recovery and Disaster Avoidance Planning for a Small Manufacturing Firm
-
I think that it is pretty much guaranteed that some amount of workload must be on premises at this point. That is a given. But maybe not the failover components. I wonder if getting AD into a hybrid with Azure, AWS or Rackspace would solve the fears around reliability, coupled with a new server with good support? Well worth asking. Going to a single server system would save a ton of money and make things very simple.
-
Something else worth considering is a backup appliance. Something like a Unitrends that can do the backups AND spin up those images in case the primary hardware has failed. That would reduce the need for a secondary server.
Likewise using Xen Orchestra with XenServer you would get backups for free and a second server (that also houses the XO system and holds the backups) could be used to spin up downed VMs.
In both cases, this would be a collapsing of several nodes into two: one production and one backup.
-
Yeah, considering their monetary constraints, a single server was my first consideration for that thread.
As for Azure, AWS, Rackspace, etc - do they really need that?
As you already said, if they get one good server that can handle all of their current workloads, the other current server could be used as backups and redundancies.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Something else worth considering is a backup appliance. Something like a Unitrends that can do the backups AND spin up those images in case the primary hardware has failed. That would reduce the need for a secondary server.
Likewise using Xen Orchestra with XenServer you would get backups for free and a second server (that also houses the XO system and holds the backups) could be used to spin up downed VMs.
In both cases, this would be a collapsing of several nodes into two: one production and one backup.
The Unitrends seems like a spend for nearly no reason in this case considering he already has the hardware for the second XenServer/XO option.
-
@Dashrender said:
As for Azure, AWS, Rackspace, etc - do they really need that?
A single VM can handle being an AD DC very well. It makes for a really nice, easy way to not only get your AD to be very resilient, it also moves the workload off premises along with the backups (if you put the FSMO roles there.) So you get the benefits of a hosted AD DC with the performance of a local - no need for local backups and you can keep using AD even if the local controller fails. Because it provides HA for AD and reduces backup needs, it can be a big win in some cases. Those cases primarily being if it tips the scales so that a second local server is not needed.
-
@Dashrender said:
The Unitrends seems like a spend for nearly no reason in this case considering he already has the hardware for the second XenServer/XO option.
I agree. XO is so powerful (and free) that it is really, really difficult to justify doing much else.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
The Unitrends seems like a spend for nearly no reason in this case considering he already has the hardware for the second XenServer/XO option.
I agree. XO is so powerful (and free) that it is really, really difficult to justify doing much else.
Even without XO, if you go Hyper-V and Veeam, you'd save a bundle since he already has the hardware, and he'd be able to do everything you mentioned.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
As for Azure, AWS, Rackspace, etc - do they really need that?
A single VM can handle being an AD DC very well. It makes for a really nice, easy way to not only get your AD to be very resilient, it also moves the workload off premises along with the backups (if you put the FSMO roles there.) So you get the benefits of a hosted AD DC with the performance of a local - no need for local backups and you can keep using AD even if the local controller fails. Because it provides HA for AD and reduces backup needs, it can be a big win in some cases. Those cases primarily being if it tips the scales so that a second local server is not needed.
I suppose - how do you connect the Azure based AD back to the home base? Can you buy firewall based VPN, or are you thinking something like Pertino or ZT?
-
@Dashrender said:
I suppose - how do you connect the Azure based AD back to the home base? Can you buy firewall based VPN, or are you thinking something like Pertino or ZT?
Same ways as any hosted, or off premises solution. Whether it is Azure, in a colo, down the street at the boss' house, at a second site... whatever solution you use for that you can probably use for the one on Azure. You can use an IPSec VPN, OpenVPN, Clientless SSL VPN, Pertino, ZeroTier or even (don't actually do this) just open the ports.
-
I've got a ghost writer...nice...
I am just crazy busy at work but this post reflects a fraction of what's on my plate right now. SO let me take a piece at a time.
We are running production VM's on that aging (but licensed) PowerEdge 2900. Do I need replacing that as my priority or perhaps look at the Starwind solution first? We are going to need more storage since we are adopting DocuWare.
-
@garak0410 said:
We are running production VM's on that aging (but licensed) PowerEdge 2900. Do I need replacing that as my priority or perhaps look at the Starwind solution first? We are going to need more storage since we are adopting DocuWare.
Aging servers are bad things. That's when the risk goes way, way up. Nothing wrong with utilizing old stuff, but from the sounds of it you have one things that makes tons and tons of sense (someone jump in if I'm missing something big here) and that is....
Get one "nice" "new" server that will handle your entire workload without a problem and migrate everything to that. That's job one. Everything else is secondary and we can figure out the details after that. Getting to one, new server will dramatically lower your risk and make your job easier and is probably necessary no matter what else you decide to do. So getting that done and out of the way is a discrete, and very important first step. Once you have that and good backups, you can breath easily and move from being in a critical disaster avoidance mode to casually tweaking the environment for the best long term strategy.
-
I put "nice" and "new" in quotes because you definitely should not get new. Check out xByte (see their add on the right over there -----> ) and see how awesome refurb can be. That's all that we buy. Something like a nicer R510 might be all that you need. That will be very cheap. Get a warranty from xByte. So "new to you" and far better than what you have, but nothing crazy.
-
Going to a single server you likely want RAID 10, but RAID 6 can do fine. But likely you won't need more than four drives if you go NL-SAS or better, so RAID 6 wouldn't be an option yet. Go high on memory, it's cheap and almost always the bottleneck.
-
We will need the DPACK to know for sure, but an R510 is a monster compared to what you have and so much cheaper than the R700 series. The R510 can hold more storage than you could possibly need and is a very low cost chassis. Hard to go wrong with it. It's my favourite entry level Dell on the market. (The R720xd is my favourite mainline Dell.)
-
@garak0410 said:
We are going to need more storage since we are adopting DocuWare.
Got a ballpark number on that? How much storage does your fileserver use today? How much are you anticipating from DocuWare?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I put "nice" and "new" in quotes because you definitely should not get new. Check out xByte (see their add on the right over there -----> ) and see how awesome refurb can be. That's all that we buy. Something like a nicer R510 might be all that you need. That will be very cheap. Get a warranty from xByte. So "new to you" and far better than what you have, but nothing crazy.
Checking out XByte now...good prices...would want something strong enough to run all of our VM's...then perhaps re-purpose the current T420 for the redundancy project.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@garak0410 said:
We are running production VM's on that aging (but licensed) PowerEdge 2900. Do I need replacing that as my priority or perhaps look at the Starwind solution first? We are going to need more storage since we are adopting DocuWare.
Aging servers are bad things. That's when the risk goes way, way up. Nothing wrong with utilizing old stuff, but from the sounds of it you have one things that makes tons and tons of sense (someone jump in if I'm missing something big here) and that is....
Get one "nice" "new" server that will handle your entire workload without a problem and migrate everything to that. That's job one. Everything else is secondary and we can figure out the details after that. Getting to one, new server will dramatically lower your risk and make your job easier and is probably necessary no matter what else you decide to do. So getting that done and out of the way is a discrete, and very important first step. Once you have that and good backups, you can breath easily and move from being in a critical disaster avoidance mode to casually tweaking the environment for the best long term strategy.
I completely agree.
Call the XByte guys and get a quote.
-
@garak0410 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I put "nice" and "new" in quotes because you definitely should not get new. Check out xByte (see their add on the right over there -----> ) and see how awesome refurb can be. That's all that we buy. Something like a nicer R510 might be all that you need. That will be very cheap. Get a warranty from xByte. So "new to you" and far better than what you have, but nothing crazy.
Checking out XByte now...good prices...would want something strong enough to run all of our VM's...then perhaps re-purpose the current T420 for the redundancy project.
They are great, we've been working with them for a few years now. And they are quite active here. @ryan-from-xbyte @SeanExablox @Lyndsie_xByte and more are around to help out.
-
I have not yet bought a server from them, but they were awesome when I needed some SSDs.
-
If DocuWare isn't as critical as everything else, you might, might consider storing it's data on a NAS unit if the disk it requires (same kind as everything else in the server) would be to expensive to put in the server itself.
