Time to upgrade

[Gilligan]

That is true Ink... I told him I would help him along.

Here is a lesson for everyone, two days ago my server went down.  I went reboot it and one of my hard drives went down... no big deal, I have 3/4 still running.  Before I even had a chance to pull that drive out another one has gone down.

Now I'm dead... all lost.

This is why backups are SO important... just hard to backup 3+TB of junk.

I'm still gonna pluck away and see if I can't bring it back alive.

[mk162]

We are working on our backup system here next.  I have carbonite, which is OK, but I'd rather have a RAID5 here and a mirror at the house just in case.  I can replace equipment easily, I can farm jobs out, but I can't replace data once it's gone.

[Gilligan]

Yep, redundancy across my shop and my house was on the list of things to do... oops.

[mk162]

after i dropped $2500 to have a drive salvaged, it's worth it to drop double that on a good backup system.  (not that you would need to, but it's worth it)

I was down for 2 weeks.

[Itsa Little CrOoked]

That is true Ink... I told him I would help him along.

Here is a lesson for everyone, two days ago my server went down.  I went reboot it and one of my hard drives went down... no big deal, I have 3/4 still running.  Before I even had a chance to pull that drive out another one has gone down.

Now I'm dead... all lost.

This is why backups are SO important... just hard to backup 3+TB of junk.

I'm still gonna pluck away and see if I can't bring it back alive.

Yes, and I appreciate the offer.  Still in flux about which direction to go....

After a recent "backup schemes" googling orgy I had, I read on a site somewhere that raids have a much higher failure rate than you would expect, complete with data loss. Worse in fact, than many other backup scenarios, and it was sobering. I wish I could find that site. I can't remember if they were positing that raids were actually responsible, or if they were just in the immediate vicinity of the crime.

It about convinced me to stay away from raids, but I'm the least tech savvy (defacto) Systems Administrator I've ever known of.

[StuJohnston]

If you don't like updates I'm not sure apple is the answer. apple tries to update more on windows than windows does.

Linux has a lot of updates as well, but it is amazing at how it updates every bit, even the basic applications can be easily updated.

I am not quite sure I can parse your update comment. I think it's supposed to be a joke? I get OSX updates infrequently enough that I don't think about it and it doesn't even steal focus to tell me there are updates let alone force a restart.

I used Ubuntu for a year once and that was enough. It can be a complete solution, but it isn't like you are going to install it and hit the ground running.I seem to recall someone saying that Linux on a desktop computer is only a good idea if you like to think of your computer as a hobby.

[Gilligan]

That is true Ink... I told him I would help him along.

Here is a lesson for everyone, two days ago my server went down.  I went reboot it and one of my hard drives went down... no big deal, I have 3/4 still running.  Before I even had a chance to pull that drive out another one has gone down.

Now I'm dead... all lost.

This is why backups are SO important... just hard to backup 3+TB of junk.

I'm still gonna pluck away and see if I can't bring it back alive.

Yes, and I appreciate the offer.  Still in flux about which direction to go....

After a recent "backup schemes" googling orgy I had, I read on a site somewhere that raids have a much higher failure rate than you would expect, complete with data loss. Worse in fact, than many other backup scenarios, and it was sobering. I wish I could find that site. I can't remember if they were positing that raids were actually responsible, or if they were just in the immediate vicinity of the crime.

It about convinced me to stay away from raids, but I'm the least tech savvy (defacto) Systems Administrator I've ever known of.

Well, that is because Raid is NOT a "backup"... it's redundancy.

Even when it's more complicated (like mine) and you are running a Raid 5 (3 or more drives one of them is the parity).  You do increase your odds of a failure because you now have 3 or more drives.  If you have 100 drives in service you WILL have a drive die at some point... throw the dice enough times and you will land on snake eyes.

BUT, I'd argue that you aren't going to lose data any sooner and in fact the opposite would be true.  IF you have ONE drive and it fails... guess what, you lost the data 100% chance of that being the case (unless you pay too much like Brad had to to recover it).  If you have 4 drives like me and one goes down... it SHOULD email you and let you know something went wrong.  IF I would have just stopped it right there, shut down and got a replacement drive, I'd still be up and running.  I pushed the envelope and left it up and running no it's LAST drives.  Something went wrong (I'm still not sure if it might just be a glitch at this point and nothing is really wrong with that 2nd drive that dropped out).

Either way, it's NOT a backup.   So you have a PROPER backup running and then you have failsafe redundancy so you don't have any real down time and if that fails on you (like in my case) you would have a backup to restore from or work off of.

In the end though... a system with no redundancy is certainly dead when the ONE drive goes down.  The system with redundancy has a greater chance of a losing a drive (law of averages/probability) but it SHOULDN'T be but a hiccup when it happens.

[Gilligan]

If you don't like updates I'm not sure apple is the answer. apple tries to update more on windows than windows does.

Linux has a lot of updates as well, but it is amazing at how it updates every bit, even the basic applications can be easily updated.

I am not quite sure I can parse your update comment. I think it's supposed to be a joke? I get OSX updates infrequently enough that I don't think about it and it doesn't even steal focus to tell me there are updates let alone force a restart.

I used Ubuntu for a year once and that was enough. It can be a complete solution, but it isn't like you are going to install it and hit the ground running.I seem to recall someone saying that Linux on a desktop computer is only a good idea if you like to think of your computer as a hobby.

I was posting from my phone so it's not as fun or easy to type out things... especially while getting used to the quirks of the new SWYPE system (still better than pecking via iPhone keyboard :p ).

All I was really saying is that Apple tries to update the handful of things on the windows systems I see (I don't EVER install apple products, mainly because of how intrusive they are) than I see actual windows updates.

Quicktime, iTunes... iWhatever ALWAYS wants to update.

Not to mention it seems to need at least two to three "services" running 24/7 in the background of the system to accomplish these seemingly meaningless updates.  Hence why I don't install Apple products on my PC.

We are getting some iPads given to us by a client and I'm still unsure how I will be using this thing because I REFUSE to install iTunes on one of my personal systems.  I might have to have an old donor computer to put it on... maybe the failing workbench computer. LOL

[blue moon]

many very good points! As another person that used to sell and configure RAID drives for living, I'll say that the likelihood of their failure is actually larger than the sum of the parts. It has been my experience that they often have issues with drivers (software) and tend to forget what they are doing (hardware), crash the BIOS, kill the battery or something similar more often than there is an actual drive failure. And this was on controllers costing $3k and more.

Similar to the Linux, I find my systems with RAID to require significantly more tinkering than just plain Jane white boxes. On many an occasion I thought about giving up on the RAID setups, but in the end it is still running on my system (mirror). The whole concept is very similar to the airplanes going away from four engines back to two. For a long time the thought was that more engines will provide better reliability, but studies showed that four engines had a significantly higher incidence numbers and was creating unnecessary stress on the crew and system. The two plane engines did as well in emergencies as the other planes and the number of incidents was significantly smaller. Current designs favor the two engine setups.

So in the end, it is your choice. As Gilly said, RAID is not a backup solution (if your motherboard dies and you have to move the drives, in many cases you will lose all the info!). So back up my friends!

pierre

[Gilligan]

I run a software raid setup... having multiples of the cards as a backup in case the card fails just to immediately switch to another card (likely that card will be outdated when you have a failure) wasn't worth it to me.

It has had it's issues... but mobo dies or even completely moving it to a new system and all I have to do is rebuild it in the configurations.  So far.  No telling what is waiting for me at home right now though.

Not many production servers out there today that doesn't implement a raid or two though... hard to argue with that.  Things are a changing but that is still a ways to go for us.


Oh, and I forgot to mention, I don't run any desktop linux systems... I finally got to the point where I said "I want to use my computer, not fight it or compromise constantly".  I love the idea of linux as a desktop and MANY of the cool features/gadgets that windows/OS X gets comes from the linux world as they are pushing the boundaries of the computer interface... but it's a full time job.

[blue moon]

I run a software raid setup... having multiples of the cards as a backup in case the card fails just to immediately switch to another card (likely that card will be outdated when you have a failure) wasn't worth it to me.

It has had it's issues... but mobo dies or even completely moving it to a new system and all I have to do is rebuild it in the configurations.  So far.  No telling what is waiting for me at home right now though.

Not many production servers out there today that doesn't implement a raid or two though... hard to argue with that.  Things are a changing but that is still a ways to go for us.


Oh, and I forgot to mention, I don't run any desktop linux systems... I finally got to the point where I said "I want to use my computer, not fight it or compromise constantly".  I love the idea of linux as a desktop and MANY of the cool features/gadgets that windows/OS X gets comes from the linux world as they are pushing the boundaries of the computer interface... but it's a full time job.

one could always argue that there are two engines on the planes after all! It is just that four was too much. . .

pierre

[Itsa Little CrOoked]

This is a good thread.  I don't want to hijack it in any way, but I have been learning about NAS (like a D-Link 320) as opposed to shared folders in a Windows computer.

Is a NAS box an easier solution for network shares?

I currently am trying to upgrade my XP Pro "server" to a more capable XP machine, since it also functions as a Signlab server for cutting vinly.  But I could lighten the ol' girl's load (pretty feeble box) and run the shared folder on a stand-alone NAS.

(FOR ANYONE WHO IS READING THIS AND DOESN'T KNOW: NAS IS Network Attached Storage. Think file server.)

Here is one solution I'm nibbling at--http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-DNS-320-ShareCenter-Network-Enclosure/dp/B004SUO450 

Especially interesting since some egghead told me a remote VPN tunnel is easier to setup on a NAS. We have an office in our home 60 miles away from our store. The commute is tough and we only go home on weekends. (We have an apartment in the city.) We use LogMeIn which is laggy but doable.

[mk162]

I am talking NAS with my it guy right now.  His take is this:

Go with a netgear like this:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822122062

Stay away from Maxtor or Seagate drives...they have a high failure rate.  Go Western Digital Black, not green or blue...those are slower.
--------

Back to my take.  I have heard they are easier to VPN than a standard drive, a lot of them have the software built in.  I will be setting up the exact same drive at the house in case of a major catastrophe.  This way I will have everything...including the video from my fancy new camera system.

[GraphicDisorder]

Here is how we back up, and it works great for us and it would be something someone that knows nothing about computers really could do.  I imagine most of you have a business to run rather than Servers to manage.

We have a Server, which out of the box you do nothing to but install client software, it backs up all files on all computers you configure every night.  You can add hard drives as needed.  It's quiet, low power draw, and it is pretty solid little machine.  A monkey could set this thing up.

Then for additional peace of mind we have all data with in each client machine on a secondary hard drive in the system.  So windows/programs run on its own drive then actual data is stored on a separate internal drive.  At night all data is copied by a external on each client as well.  So effectively there are 3 copies of each computer in the building.  Addition to that we copy all of them monthly and take it offsite. 

[mk162]

that isn't a bad idea, but what happens if you forget one month or at the very end of the month your building is struck by lightning or thieves steal or destroy everything?  I would rather have an automatic offsite backup to prevent any lost files.  It should be seamless.