BackUp device for local or colo storage
-
1 Currently that is stand alone.
The equipment we're looking into would be a dual host setup. "Primary Primary" so to speak.
-
A long time ago I remember seeing some documentation (sales pamphlet) for industrial 10G switches. Small little units, 5 ports.
I can remember for the life of me their name though as this was years ago.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
A long time ago I remember seeing some documentation (sales pamphlet) for industrial 10G switches. Small little units, 5 ports.
I can remember for the life of me their name though as this was years ago.
Netgear has some fairly inexpensive managed switches that have 10G uplink ports. I think in the 800-900$ range. You could look into those if you don't need a ton of 10Gbe ports.
-
Yeah I'm thinking we won't need many.
Just device to device basically.
From XenServer host to onsite backup device.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Yeah I'm thinking we won't need many.
Just device to device basically.
From XenServer host to onsite backup device.
Yep, I can't remember the model number but Netgear, in the last year, released a model with 4 10Gbe ports.
-
Likely four ports won't be enough.
-
@scottalanmiller Even if we spent for the 10G NICs in the servers?
2 Hypervisors 1 Backup device.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@scottalanmiller Even if we spent for the 10G NICs in the servers?
2 Hypervisors 1 Backup device.
Oh, so two servers and one backup device and one uplink to the rest of the network? Four ports might do it then. But.... no redundancy at all?
-
Cost consciousness.
Is there that much added value in doubling what we have for those "if" events.
-
Nevermind, I was thinking about the S3300 series, they have 2 uplink ports. There are 2 10Gb copper or fiber ports that you can use interchangeably... but only two at a time. They do have the XT712T but I have a feeling that may be a bit too expensive.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Cost consciousness.
Is there that much added value in doubling what we have for those "if" events.
NICs and switches tend to die and it doubles throughput.
-
Well even in that case I would still look at a bigger switch with 8 - 12 ports. possibly with some level of management on it.
-
Can you do port bonding? I thought I read someone suggest that but didn't see your response. That would be a really good stop gap solution for now.
-
@coliver Possibly.
The biggest bottleneck with the existing backup solution is the server performing the work. Which is just constantly getting hit.
Port bonding on the new setup would reduce some cost, at the price of reducing what we can run VM wise since those ports would be tied up.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@coliver Possibly.
The biggest bottleneck with the existing backup solution is the server performing the work. Which is just constantly getting hit.
Port bonding on the new setup would reduce some cost, at the price of reducing what we can run VM wise since those ports would be tied up.
The cost of an additional 4 port 1Gbe card is minimal. You could easily add that to all your systems for a fraction the cost of the 10Gbe switch and adapters.
-
I'm forking to a new thread. Will post a link shortly.
-
New topic discussing just the goals of this project.
http://mangolassi.it/topic/6453/backup-and-recovery-goals -
@scottalanmiller said:
Wouldn't you carry off daily?
Sorry just saw this, its a nuisance to have to swap tape or drive daily to do it. Our current plan is carry off weekly.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Cost consciousness.
Is there that much added value in doubling what we have for those "if" events.
Remember this post when you ask for a full second server to run your VM environment.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@coliver Possibly.
The biggest bottleneck with the existing backup solution is the server performing the work. Which is just constantly getting hit.
Port bonding on the new setup would reduce some cost, at the price of reducing what we can run VM wise since those ports would be tied up.
What do you mean? you typically bond all the NICs in a VM host together and all the VMs on the host share the pipe.
Next question, do you really use 800 Mb (realistic use from 1 Gb ports) on each server at the same time?
