1 backup Device or multiple

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al
  • Start date Start date
A

Al

Guest
Hey all,

I need some *polite* argument points please :)

I work at a consulting company who manages networks for their
clients. I'm reletively new here but something strikes me as unusual:
In many cases, where there are multiple servers, they also use
multiple backup devices.
For example:
FS1 has a backup device
AS1 has a backup device
TS1 has a backup device

The argument they give is that it is more than a single point of
failure and if one backup failes or they forget to put in a tape, then
chances are that the other ones will pass. Basically they are not
relying on 1 tape drive to do it all (lets say use a 400/800 instead
of 3 x 200/400 lto drives).

To me this does not make sense from a financial point of view and a
managment point of view.

I want to bring this to the table but need solid arguments....any
ideas?

Thanks,
Al
 
Re: 1 backup Device or multiple

Hello Al,

We have different networks and use for all networks a separate tape library
which is connected via fibre channel. All servers backup to the library which
includes up to 48 backup tapes. For the libraries we use a support contract
with the vendor, so even in case of hardware failures, in short time the
backup solution is back.

Best regards

Meinolf Weber
Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.
** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups
** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm

> Hey all,
>
> I need some *polite* argument points please :)
>
> I work at a consulting company who manages networks for their
> clients. I'm reletively new here but something strikes me as unusual:
> In many cases, where there are multiple servers, they also use
> multiple backup devices.
> For example:
> FS1 has a backup device
> AS1 has a backup device
> TS1 has a backup device
> The argument they give is that it is more than a single point of
> failure and if one backup failes or they forget to put in a tape, then
> chances are that the other ones will pass. Basically they are not
> relying on 1 tape drive to do it all (lets say use a 400/800 instead
> of 3 x 200/400 lto drives).
>
> To me this does not make sense from a financial point of view and a
> managment point of view.
>
> I want to bring this to the table but need solid arguments....any
> ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Al
 
Re: 1 backup Device or multiple

"Al" <alexntsolution@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:33c08088-5d0e-4d0b-9c3c-22a498e64441@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Hey all,
>
> I need some *polite* argument points please :)
>
> I work at a consulting company who manages networks for their
> clients. I'm reletively new here but something strikes me as unusual:
> In many cases, where there are multiple servers, they also use
> multiple backup devices.
> For example:
> FS1 has a backup device
> AS1 has a backup device
> TS1 has a backup device
>
> The argument they give is that it is more than a single point of
> failure and if one backup failes or they forget to put in a tape, then
> chances are that the other ones will pass. Basically they are not
> relying on 1 tape drive to do it all (lets say use a 400/800 instead
> of 3 x 200/400 lto drives).
>
> To me this does not make sense from a financial point of view and a
> managment point of view.
>
> I want to bring this to the table but need solid arguments....any
> ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Al

If you want credible advice, you need to give more details. After all... a
"backup device" could be a $79 USB drive, or a built-in (already existing)
tape drive. Seventy nine dollars is a drop in the financial bucket compared
to consulting fees. The concept of two copies of backup, by itself, is not
unorthodox and can be a life saver. Just depends on the specific business
and the true value of the data. (i.e. Can the data be reproduced via hard
copy in a reasonble period of time at a reasonble expense?)

Also, how important is their data? Can you quantify the "value" of their
data in financial terms? Or... would a total rebuild likely only take one
day, and not be worth the enterprise "backup" expense? There are tons of
scenarios regarding best backup practices. And the most important one is to
tailor the backup strategy to the specific needs.

More info...

-Frank
 
Re: 1 backup Device or multiple

Al wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I need some *polite* argument points please :)
>
> I work at a consulting company who manages networks for their
> clients. I'm reletively new here but something strikes me as unusual:
> In many cases, where there are multiple servers, they also use
> multiple backup devices.
> For example:
> FS1 has a backup device
> AS1 has a backup device
> TS1 has a backup device
>
> The argument they give is that it is more than a single point of
> failure and if one backup failes or they forget to put in a tape, then
> chances are that the other ones will pass. Basically they are not
> relying on 1 tape drive to do it all (lets say use a 400/800 instead
> of 3 x 200/400 lto drives).
>
> To me this does not make sense from a financial point of view and a
> managment point of view.
>
> I want to bring this to the table but need solid arguments....any
> ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Al

I agree - more information is needed.

But, assuming one fairly specific scenario with multiple servers and
multiple tape drives...

Personally, I can see a redundancy concern with tape... but there are
multiple ways to be redundant.

In my opinion, having a "spare" tape drive is fine... but it's
inappropriate to have, say one tape drive per server for 5 servers when
a library will do the same for half the price. Get a library with
multiple tape heads and you almost eliminate the need to have a "spare"

Of course, if this consulting company is putting in DIFFERENT tape
technologies - one server uses AIT, two use SDLT, and another two use
LTO (but one is LTO2 and the other is LTO3), then I would definitely
question if this company truly had the best interests of the clients in
mind.
 
Back
Top