If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive-based backup in lieu of tape backup
Hello,
We've just reached the point with our single-tape backup drive where we have too much data to back up on a single-tape drive. Our backup has now reached 4 tapes, so the backup procedure is simply taking too long for our business to function at the level it needs to. We're now faced with the decision of whether to go to a multi-tape robotic library of some type, or move to an entirely disk-based backup solution. I'd really like to move to disks, and still maybe run tape backup every 1 or 2 weeks for a while until we get adjusted to the disk-based method. Has anyone else experimented with this yet? We currently use Symantec Backup Exec 11d for tape, so we can continue to use that with the disk- based or removable disk-based backup processes that are built into BE11. I can't decide whether to use USB/FireWire external drives or go ahead and buy a NAS device and run backups to the RAID, and just remove the physical disks to take offsite. Any suggestions? Thanks, -Coleman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive-based backup in lieu of tape backup
Coleman wrote:
We currently use Symantec Backup Exec 11d That's the first thing to get rid of. In my experience, Symantec / Norton products are simply disasters waiting to happen. As for the rest - you're in the same quandary as plenty of others. I'd suggest multiple, external RAID 1 or RAID 5 arrays - using full backups (avoid incremental) each day to separate arrays. I personally don't trust tape at all; head alignment always questionable/ dubious and the cause of many problems, plus the cost per GB, etc, Critically important data can - in most cases - be backed up to DVD which is more secure (in my opinion) than tape. Bear in mind - when we were selling 40MB drives back in 1992, a tape streamer cost 25% of the hard drive cost - and they tended to be reliable. Now? Tape backup costs up to 2000% of the storage costs. Trying to back up 6TB to tape nowadays? There's not a single tape solution I'd trust. Duncan -- Retrodata www.retrodata.co.uk Globally Local Data Recovery Experts |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive-based backup in lieu of tape backup
Previously Odie Ferrous wrote:
Coleman wrote: We currently use Symantec Backup Exec 11d That's the first thing to get rid of. In my experience, Symantec / Norton products are simply disasters waiting to happen. As for the rest - you're in the same quandary as plenty of others. I'd suggest multiple, external RAID 1 or RAID 5 arrays - using full backups (avoid incremental) each day to separate arrays. Independent arrays is the key. Otherwise you can loose all on a single mistake. I personally don't trust tape at all; head alignment always questionable/ dubious and the cause of many problems, plus the cost per GB, etc, Critically important data can - in most cases - be backed up to DVD which is more secure (in my opinion) than tape. DVD is very problematic. If you have the right combination of medium und drive, it may work very well. But it may also be anu degree of a desaster. DVD-RAM is a bit better. Bear in mind - when we were selling 40MB drives back in 1992, a tape streamer cost 25% of the hard drive cost - and they tended to be reliable. Now? Tape backup costs up to 2000% of the storage costs. Trying to back up 6TB to tape nowadays? There's not a single tape solution I'd trust. It depends a bit on the price and size range. I have used an IBM tape library for some years, that is pretty reliable and tolerably fast. Holds about 500 cartridges with 200GB each and has 4 * tape drives. This is a bit of a higher price class though and used by 100 people for backup and data archiving. Arno |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive-based backup in lieu of tape backup
On Feb 15, 5:06*pm, Odie Ferrous wrote:
Coleman wrote: We currently use Symantec *Backup Exec 11d That's the first thing to get rid of. *In my experience, Symantec / Norton products are simply disasters waiting to happen. As for the rest - you're in the same quandary as plenty of others. I'd suggest multiple, external RAID 1 or RAID 5 arrays - using full backups (avoid incremental) each day to separate arrays. I personally don't trust tape at all; head alignment always questionable/ dubious and the cause of many problems, plus the cost per GB, etc, Critically important data can - in most cases - be backed up to DVD which is more secure (in my opinion) than tape. Bear in mind - when we were selling 40MB drives back in 1992, a tape streamer cost 25% of the hard drive cost - and they tended to be reliable. *Now? *Tape backup costs up to 2000% of the storage costs. Trying to back up 6TB to tape nowadays? *There's not a single tape solution I'd trust. Duncan -- Retrodatawww.retrodata.co.uk Globally Local Data Recovery Experts So if I eliminate a tool like Backup Exec, what method should I use to backup everything? Keep in mind, I've got things like Exchange and SQL Server that need to be backed up, preferably all with a single tool. Is there an alternative to BE? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hard drive-based backup in lieu of tape backup
Coleman wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:06 pm, Odie Ferrous wrote: Coleman wrote: We currently use Symantec Backup Exec 11d That's the first thing to get rid of. In my experience, Symantec / Norton products are simply disasters waiting to happen. As for the rest - you're in the same quandary as plenty of others. I'd suggest multiple, external RAID 1 or RAID 5 arrays - using full backups (avoid incremental) each day to separate arrays. I personally don't trust tape at all; head alignment always questionable/ dubious and the cause of many problems, plus the cost per GB, etc, Critically important data can - in most cases - be backed up to DVD which is more secure (in my opinion) than tape. Bear in mind - when we were selling 40MB drives back in 1992, a tape streamer cost 25% of the hard drive cost - and they tended to be reliable. Now? Tape backup costs up to 2000% of the storage costs. Trying to back up 6TB to tape nowadays? There's not a single tape solution I'd trust. Duncan -- Retrodatawww.retrodata.co.uk Globally Local Data Recovery Experts So if I eliminate a tool like Backup Exec, what method should I use to backup everything? Keep in mind, I've got things like Exchange and SQL Server that need to be backed up, preferably all with a single tool. Is there an alternative to BE? I'm afraid I wouldn't have the foggiest about the best backup software. I personally don't trust any automated software - fortunately my critical data amounts to well under 1GB, so I manually copy my this data to alternate USB sticks a few times a day, with weekly backups (of each last daily backup) to DVD. I sincerely feel for companies who have terabytes of data to backup - there really is nothing out there that is bullet-proof. Duncan -- Retrodata www.retrodata.co.uk Globally Local Data Recovery Experts |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Harddisk to tape backup (A backup inside a backup or another way) with Symantec Backup Exec? | markm75 | Storage & Hardrives | 0 | February 26th 07 06:32 PM |
tape backup drive - what'd you recommend | Ufit | General | 16 | December 31st 05 12:51 AM |
Backup tape drive | Michael C | General | 4 | July 31st 05 03:25 AM |
NT 4.0 Hard drive crash, trying to restore data from tape backup, unrecognizable format, unknown backup software | [email protected] | Storage & Hardrives | 2 | June 27th 05 04:43 PM |
Old Tape Backup Drive Question | Arifi Koseoglu | Storage (alternative) | 0 | January 16th 04 03:21 PM |