1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

Network attached storage comments

Discussion in 'Networking' started by bigbear, Jan 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. bigbear

    bigbear Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    4,719
    Hello
    At the moment in our office we have a network, one computer is used as the main server with only one drive and is backed up with a tape drive.
    I have mentioned to my boss that this is far from ideal, if say the hard drive fails before it is backed up.
    I came across this Netgear storage device, and felt it could suit are requirements to be used as the main server and backup in raid 1 array.
    I would appreciate any views and comments on what I have discribed, or if anybody thinks there is a better option.
    Thanks in advance

    http://www.netgear.com/products/details/SC101.php
     
  2. JohnWill

    JohnWill Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Messages:
    106,418
  3. redcivic

    redcivic

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    418
  4. bigbear

    bigbear Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    4,719
    I have just been looking at the Buffalo Terabyte, to be honest they are quite expensive for what they are, I can put together quite a good computer for that price.
    Do you think it would better to build another computer with two drives in raid array and just use it for backup?
     
  5. axis77

    axis77

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    650
    if the server you are currently using is adequate with performance, why not just get a adaptec scsi card and two 15k seagate scsi drives and implement raid with mirroring...as well as the current tape device...
     
  6. JohnWill

    JohnWill Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Messages:
    106,418
    And let's keep these threads to a single forum. Don't start multiple threads on the same topic please. I've moved this one to networking.
     
  7. StumpedTechy

    StumpedTechy

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,234
    Raid isn't really a backup solution and I defy anyone to say it is. It mirrors data but does not in any way backup to an archival form for later retrieval.

    While you may want raid I recommend you still get some kind of backup solution as well.
     
  8. JohnWill

    JohnWill Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Messages:
    106,418
    I gotta agree with the RAID comment. RAID is not backup, it's just a way to either improve performance or availability. A backup process is still required.
     
  9. bigbear

    bigbear Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    4,719
    I must apologize as I have possibly misguided everyone by calling it a server.
    This is just for backup, why can't I use raid in this instance?
    I thought using raid 1 would give me added security in case one of the drives fail.
     
  10. JohnWill

    JohnWill Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Messages:
    106,418
    You can use RAID, I guess we thought you were trying to use it as a method of backing up the data too. :)

    In truth, it's somewhat pointless to use raid for backup media, since you don't need the redundancy as a rule, after all, you should still have the primary copy, right? :D
     
  11. StumpedTechy

    StumpedTechy

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,234
    Yes raid gives you redundancy in case of drive failure. This isn't really so much a backup solution as it is a keeping things running solution. your right it will be better than not running raid at all. Its just it does not have any archival feature and a file deleted on one copy will be deleted on the second copy as well which is why we mention backup on top of a raid solution.
     
  12. bigbear

    bigbear Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    4,719
    Maybe I am not being as clear as I should be, at the moment we have four computers and they save all there work to the one computer that I mentioned in the first post.
    The solution I came up with was to install this network storage device and save there work to this instead of the first computer.
    I am not quite sure why we need another backup on top of this as well, in raid 1 we would already have two copys correct?
    OTOH would it be better to save to there own indvidual computers and then backup to storage device, I am aware that XP has its own backup utilty and I suppose we could set it up to backup on a daily basis.
    I have not purchased anything yet and would appreciate any other options or suggestions.
     
  13. StumpedTechy

    StumpedTechy

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,234
    If they are saving everything to the NAS what is backing up this NAS in case of failure?

    Adding Raid 1 does a real time duplicate of what your using on individual PC's to do a quick swapout but is not a backup. Actually even a NAS is still only realtime if your just having people save to it and not running "backup jobs".

    Here is what I would recommend for FULL redundancy.

    Raid 1 on any PC/Server that is mission critical in case of drive failure. Network storage (either PC/Server or NAS solution) for important data that needs to be shared to multiple users. Backup for the NAS/PC/Server Solution that is an actual backup (not raid level but does actual file archival to a backup file).

    This will give you redundancy on the HDD level for mission critical PC's and will give yo ua true backup sollution for your mission crtical data should your server/NAS go down.

    You may want to run the backup job from one of the servers with raid 1 on it. That should have some HDD space to be able to support backups of the NAS and make it so you don't have to buy any more backup hardware. This way you not only have the NAS but then you have NAS backup on 2 drives as well as raid on the important PC's/servers.
     
  14. JohnWill

    JohnWill Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2002
    Messages:
    106,418
    Actually, I prefer RAID-5 for servers, since you get better performance and the redundancy. Obviously, it requires at least three drives, and four or more for a decent performance boost. Also, RAID-5 with four drives will give you roughly 75% of the capacity of the attached disks, where RAID-1 will only give you 50% of the capacity.
     
  15. StumpedTechy

    StumpedTechy

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,234
    I perfer raid 5 as well as I am sure you well know. I was only using Raid 1 as that is what he mentioned at the beginning so I figured he had a desire for raid 1 over raid 5.
     
  16. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/436885

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice