Re: Archive strategy: NAS?
I am pretty sure Macs also offer something similar to network shares?
Setup the shares on a central server. Backup the shares.
You never get into the desktop back business then.
You to users : "whatever you store on the network share is what gets backed
up. anything else doesnt".
You can make life easier for them by making the network storage as the
default save option in their often used apps. Eg:, in MS word, you can
specify what folder a doc is saved by default.
"Faeandar" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
> On 5 Mar 2005 07:04:02 -0800, "Joseph O'Brien"
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>Thanks for your thoughts. To answer your question, the graphics dept
>>runs Mac OS X. My budget is flexible, but I'm trying to keep it under
>>$2000. I'm the lone tech guy, so our experience pool is limited. NAS
>>seems to be a simple, cost-effective route.
>>One thing you wrote about worried me a bit: desktop backups. What are
>>your concerns about this? I use Retrospect to backup all our 5 Macs
>>and 15 PCs, and it seems to work OK. I'm starting to feel the pinch of
>>capacity, though. Of course, I'm not even in the same league as your
>>8,000 desktop backup, but I'm wondering if I should look for a better
> So, thought about the X-raid or whatever it is from Apple? I hear
> good things about it and even thought it would be server attached
> there's nothing wrong with that. And if you have OS X experience all
> the better. Like I said, straight up NAS would work fine too. It's
> all a matter of preference for the environment you're describing.
> Get out of the desktop backup business and stay the hell away from it.
> Trust me on this one. Never ever offer it as an option, even if you
> only have 20 machines. It will turn into something you wish you'd
> never started, guarenteed. Problems you encounter are insane
> duplication, even with policies. Capacity is a factor of 5 for every
> 25 users, or close to it. And NBU Pro doesn't work worth a crap for
> anything over 1k desktops. Maybe not even then. It's garbage.
> Other problems are users forget to, or select not to, do backups. And
> if you make "yes" the default they'll scream about having to do a
> backup every time they remote login, which I agree sucks rocks. I can
> personally say that, even though I'm technical, I say "No" every time
> I login. Last backup? 3 months ago. If I lose data is it my fault?
> Of course, but then it's also my fault if someone else loses data even
> if they were stupid (like me). Actually not my fault personally but
> you get the idea. And god help you if a VP's laptop eats crap while
> in Hong Kong right before a presentation. If that data is on a
> network store though you can allow another laptop access or ftp it to
> their site. Also it allows for regular and solid backups of the data.
> Anyway, something of a rant so on to...
> Alternatives, what you're pursuing is great. Force as much data onto
> the networked storage as possible.
>>> On 4 Mar 2005 08:57:44 -0800, "Joseph O'Brien"
>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> >Hello. I'm trying to update the archive strategy of our small[/color]
>>> >department. First, the environment is not server centric: each
>>> >designer works on files stored on his computer.
>>> >To archive files, the designer uploads a finished job to shared[/color]
>>> >on a server. Then, an administrator burns these jobs to 2 CDs: one
>>> >goes into long-term storage, the other is readily available. The
>>> >designers frequently need to retrieve files from the archives when[/color]
>>> >are redesigned or reprinted.
>>> >This strategy is about 7 years old, but our increased output is[/color]
>>> >it a real hassle.
>>> >So, I would like to set up an inexpensive NAS device and just keep[/color]
>>> >archived files there. That way, designers wouldn't have to[/color]
>>> >retrieve CDs to de-archive files, they could just download them from
>>> >the NAS. We could do a nightly backup via the internet to off-site
>>> >Until now, I have only considered server attached storage. However,
>>> >there are a few NAS units out there for a comparable price. I don't
>>> >know much about them, but they seem pretty simple.
>>> >Funny thing is, our hardware retailer was reluctant to sell us NAS,[/color]
>>> >wanted to sell a tape-backup system instead.
>>> >I would appreciate a few opinions on this. It seems like a good[/color]
>>> >but I'm sure I'm missing something.
>>> >Thanks for taking time to read this.
>>> A little more detail would help. What platforms are you using? Do
>>> you have a budget? Is there any in-house experience with other
>>> solutions? etc...
>>> As to the CD thing, many people on this list have pointed out that
>>> DVD/CD as backups is a dangerous game as they are not long term[/color]
>>> for the most part.
>>> For what you are talking about server based storage would be fine.
>>> NAS would also work. Either way the important aspect of this is to
>>> have their archived data on disk rather than tape or CD for normal
>>> retreival. Long term would likely best be tape but others may have
>>> better suggestions.
>>> One thing I will strongly advise against is desktop backups. Once[/color]
>>> go down that road it's almost impossible to get off it. If you only
>>> have 5 machines it may not seem all that bad, but extrapolate that[/color]
>>> and it gets ugly. We've got 8,000 desktops we have to backup, and
>>> it's no fun whatsoever. The only saving grace is it's not my job...
Re: Archive strategy: NAS?
In researching a similar SOHO solution I came across the Maxtronics
Pegagsus NAS line. They make 2, 4 and 8-drive models that support Apple
AFP 3.1 which apparently is great for Mac users (in addition to
supporting Win and Unix). I know nothing about this company and would
be interested in hearing from any users.