1 backup Device or multiple

[Guest Al]

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

[Guest Meinolf Weber]

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

[Guest Frankster]

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

[Guest leew [MVP]]

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.