General discussion

Locked

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

By ebott ·
I'm working with a TechRepublic member who recently upgraded to a Windows 2000 Server. He's managed to convince his users to store their data on the server where it can be backed up, but getting all those data files into safe storage has turned intoa struggle. His old DDS-2 backup drive doesn't have the capacity or the speed to do regular backups. What hardware would you recommend? Should he consider migrating older files to Removable Storage? I'll award 1000 TechPoints (and maybe even a cool TechRepublic T-shirt) if I use your advice in my next column. But don't delay--this challenge closes at the end of the day on Thursday, July 27.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

45 total posts (Page 3 of 5)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by jackpod In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

Without knowing the amount of data that needs to be backed up and other important variables some assumptions need to be made. It is apparent that a new tape drive needs to be purchased. An efficient solution would be to acquire a DLT 4700 - 7 tape changer and install it on the local machine's SCSI chain. I currently backup a data server with 100 gigs of raid 5 storage onto a 4700 on the local machine. This in addition to the original tape backup system that backs up the other critical servers over the network keeps the backup procedure within the "window of opportunity"

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by geoSEAN In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

I am about to start a "test drive" with the Ecrix VXA-1 tape drive. Very impressive at Comdex in November, and they now have Win2K drivers and support a variety of backup programs. Throughput appears to be around the same as DLT with a 33GB tape (66GB w/compression) and a VERY attractive price (competitive w/DAT). Media, however, is expensive relative to DAT. You can get more info (I did) from ecrix.com

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by NTTech In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

METHOD ONE:
The zero dollar fix is to use the hardware that's in place to do a selective incremental backups. Only "new" or"changed" files. Then a "full" backup on a regular basis so the incremental tapes can be
re-used.

METHOD TWO:
For minimal outlay, he could install a
CD-RW and ocasionally burn a copy of users older files, "test" the copy and then delete those infrequently used files. I use about a six month cutoff. I use CD-R's ($.42 each)
and when a user collects four or five, I consolidate them back to one CD if there is enough room for all their files.

I finally graduated from method one and find that method two works well, although it is a fairly labor intesive process with 16 users. It works very well for my users and keeps our storage volumes "cleaned up".

"IMPORTANT" - ALWAYS test the copies on a couple of different machines BEFORE you delete any old files... <vbg>

Jim Wilson
IT Administrator
Fremont Sawmill

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by soren.albeck In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

First, Removable Storage is not a way to lessen backup loads - unless you don't want backups of files on RS. When doing backups therefore, remember to also copy files on removable storage (as Windows 2000 Backup offers). The drive(s) used for Removable Storage must be able to hold all files in a Removable Storage Group (all files are copied initially), so that seems to rule out the DDS-2. Options as to new hardware: Consider a DAT-autoloader or DLT as a more expensive but also more reliable drive.

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by jkozura In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

It looks like most of the bases have been covered by the previous messages, but I will add my 2 cents worth. As our organization has grown we have upgraded from 4G DAT to 8G DAT, then now to 40/80G DLT. There is no comparison between DAT and DLT. DLT is faster, the tapes are much more rugged, and they last a long time. My Novell server runs it's DLT 5 or 6 hours a night M-F, backing up our data, and it hasn't given me a moment's problem in over a year of use. Can anyone using DAT say that? I doubt it. If you can afford the price, upgrade to DLT. Removable storage options will end up being a lot more expensive and complicated than just deleting older files that are archived on DLT backups.
John Kozura IV
IS Manager
AICPA/PDI

Collapse -

Ed Bott's Microsoft Challenge--7/20/2000

by ebott In reply to Ed Bott's Microsoft Chall ...

The question was auto-closed by TechRepublic

Back to Windows Forum
45 total posts (Page 3 of 5)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums