[Pc_Support] Re: Backup methodology -- centralize for lower TCO

[Damien McKenna]

On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:16 PM, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 16:39 -0400, Damien McKenna wrote:
>> So should I do a daily backup to the local drive and then backup up
>> *that* data file to the tape?
>
> You should always _avoid_ streaming over the network directly to tape.

That's what I'm trying to avoid, hence my questions on how to do it :- 
P  My question was a specific implementation question, i.e. should I  
first backup the files to disk and copy that archive file to tape, or  
should I do a separate backup of the data straight to tape?  The  
problem with the former, as I see it, is that you end up with an  
archive within an archive, i.e you're not backing up the source files  
you're backing up a 150gb file and that's what you'd be restoring  
should the need arise.

> But in reality today, most people only need off-line backups (e.g.,
> tape/off-site) every week or so.  At the same time, they still want
> nightly near-line backups they can restore from quickly (e.g., disk).

Yep, that's the plan.

>> Or how would it work?  We use BackupExec 10 right now but aren't
>> completely adversed to changing to something else, especially as
>> our licenses are up for renewal anyway.
>
> Veritas (now Symantec) NetBackup is the "enterprise" complement to  
> their
> BackupExec.  You only need 1 server license and then agents as needed
> _if_ you use a _centralized_ backup server.

We have one centralized backup server running BackupExec, I don't see  
the purpose of having NetBackup.  Needless to say the Symantec site  
is pretty useless in explaining in real terms how each one works  
versus the other, and the rep at CDW said we didn't need NetBackup to  
do basic stuff that we just need the "Advanced File Backup Option"  
for BackupExec.  It seems to be the usual "enterprisey" BS to me -  
there are technical issues at hand but its so wrapped up in BS PR  
terms and marketed to management that the lowly geeks can't get the  
information they want/need to make the decision.

>> Right now I'm thinking of an NLE drive in a Firewire enclosure - do
>> you think a Serial-ATA or e-SATA setup would be more reliable?
>
> Er, um, er -- if you don't want to go tape, then at least go with 2.5"
> drives.

You misunderstood.  We already have the LTO-2 drive I've mentioned  
before, I don't want to go SCSI for the near-line portion of our  
backup routine.

> As far as FireWire v. SATA, it really depends.  FireWire is slower and
> can have various issues, SATA is solid (and eSATA brackets/cables only
> cost $10).  But the opposite is that you can't "plug'n play" eSATA (at
> least not without a $100 3Ware 8006-2LP SATA card), so that becomes an
> issue.

Right now I'm looking at a SCSI enclosure for $55 (http:// 
www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16817145006) and a $20  
card (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16816132002).

> First off, SAS is just SATA with SCSI-2.  You can still use SATA  
> drives
> on SAS cards.  In fact, many SAS drives fix the "plug'n play" issue of
> SATA like 3Ware cards.

SAS controller cards cost more than what we're looking to spend on  
this, never mind the drives.

> By the time you keep throwing superstore solutions at the problem,
> you'll probably find that you're already spending $1-2K on a half- 
> baked,
> unmaintainable or unreliable system of disks, manual tasks, etc... --
> not including the manual overhead to implement it.

Implementation time isn't a concern, its daily maintenance that's the  
problem.

>> What I'm aiming for is a weekly backup and then daily incremental
>> backups.  I'd like the tape backup to basically be a mirror of the  
>> on-
>> disc backup if possible (if it happens at the weekend its pretty much
>> guaranteed to be).
>
> For how many systems are you backing up?

Two main servers (the file server itself and a second server running  
MS Exchange) plus a negligible quantity of remote files around the  
network.

> Remember, the more "portable disks" you have flying around the "more
> systems to backup," the more manual overhead you have, various
> procedures, etc... and lots and lots of room for error.

I don't see the room for error.

> Plus it's not really cheap to maintain several disks, let alone deal
> with their failure, added vibration and other things flying around.

They won't be flying around?!

> At some point, _centralizing_ your backup on your network is what you
> want.

At what point did I say that we *weren't* doing a centralized backup?

> And if you're not doing that with a combination of disk and tape,
> you're leaving holes in your backup strategy.

Again, at what point did I say we *weren't* doing this?  I've  
repeatedly said this is what we want to do.

> Build a _dedicated_ backup server:
> - Put lots of disk on it
> - Put a single tape drive on it

Won't happen.  We have a DL380 file server running 140gb of space on  
a SCSI RAID-5 with an LTO-2 tape drive attached and currently using  
about 60-70gb of space.  We have a second DL380 with <20gb of  
Exchange 2003 data.

> You can build a quality PCI-X/PCIe single or dual-core Opteron/Xeon  
> with
> 2GB of RAM for $750 ...

I know and don't care, it is out of scope for this project.

> [**NOTE:  3Ware has added a new 9590SX series that is PCIe.  It  
> seems to
> be the 9550SX with a PCI-X to PCIe bridge, so it might work just fine.

Nice, finally they moved to PCIe.

> Then you basically:
> - Do a full backup of every system you want backed up
> - Then delta all systems every night

Yes.  I know.

More specifically I want:
1. Full backup of the servers in question to a local disk (via  
external SATA), updated weekly.
2. Full backup of the servers in question to LTO-2 tape, rotated weekly.
3. Daily deltas of the servers in question to the same local disk.

In effect I want #1 and #2 to the same.

> After that you have full copies of everything.  If your backup  
> software
> is "smart," it can maintain those multiple "deltas" (like  
> snapshots) and
> let you restore from select points in time -- right from disk, over  
> the
> network.

BackupExec seems a bit dumb, er, crap, in this regard.  Yes, you can  
create delta backups but it doesn't seem to let you out-of-the-box  
create a rotating group of disk backup files.

So, to make sure you're not getting mixed up in the month-long  
conversation...

* We've got about 160gb of data spread over two servers.
* Both servers are the same - DL380's with SCSI drives in RAID-5.
* Both servers run Windows 2003 (we upgraded recently from '2000).
* One server, with the bare files, has an LTO-2 drive connected to  
the internal SCSI controller.
* The other server just has MS Exchange 2003 with some related  
utilities.
* There's a tiny amount of workstation-level data that's being backed  
up but I can use something on that specific PC if needed, i.e. it  
isn't really part of the equation.
* I want to do a weekly full snapshot of both servers.
* I want daily deltas of both servers.
* I want to copy the weekly snapshot to tape so I have a 1-to-1  
relationship between the on-disk weekly snapshot and the tapes.
* The weekly tape backups should be of the original data, i.e. if I  
do a list of the tape's catalog I want to see the source files and  
not a 160gb backup file which must be extracted in its entirety  
before I can then access the source files.  This seems to be a  
problem with many solutions.
* At the hardware level we're looking at an external solution due to  
space limitations.
* SCSI is too expensive for us, as is SAS.
* External SATA of some sort, be it official e-SATA or just an  
external SATA connector, seems to be a good route to take in terms of  
speed vs reliability vs cost.
* I'm looking at either a Western Digital RE-series or Seagate NL35  
drive for the improved reliability over consumer grade drives.  $85  
for 250gb is plenty I think, or 320gb for $120.
* I'm looking at about $20 for a controller card and $55 for a case,  
so $160 to $195 total.
* BackupExec by default has crappy D2D2T support, it seems a $380 add- 
on is required to do what I want.
* Our licenses for BackupExec are up for renewal so it is worth  
considering alternative products.

-- 
Damien McKenna - Web Developer - dmckenna at thelimucompany.com
The Limu Company - http://www.thelimucompany.com/ - 407-804-1014
#include <stdjoke.h>