Wish I'd had one of these when my UPS cable popped out

[stek]

Would this have happened with an apple time machine? Just asking like.

There's no 32TB Apple Time Capsule/machine yet lol!

I'm an Apple head, but the only time I used time machine to restore, it lost my iTunes stuff, so I don't trust it now....

[scooterscot]

There's no 32TB Apple Time Capsule/machine yet lol!

I'm an Apple head, but the only time I used time machine to restore, it lost my iTunes stuff, so I don't trust it now....

I could not conceive needing 23TB, at least not in my business. We've a 3TB machine that serves three computers in the house. Backups are usually around the last six months. Kept in a separate building too, so even of my equipment is stolen it's not the end of days.

[vwdan]

If you're not storing offsite and using a proper backup system, you're kidding yourself anyway IMHO. RAID is fine for disk redundancy, but that's where its usefulness stops.

[OwlHoot]

If you're not storing offsite and using a proper backup system, you're kidding yourself anyway IMHO. RAID is fine for disk redundancy, but that's where its usefulness stops.

Very true.

[doodab]

If you're not storing offsite and using a proper backup system, you're kidding yourself anyway IMHO. RAID is fine for disk redundancy, but that's where its usefulness stops.

+1. For most people backing up direct to external disk or the cloud makes sense. It's not a sexy gadget though so they don't do it.

[stek]

I use my SAN/NAS tinkerings as a stop-gap, the real storage is on Crashplan, and it works cos I deleted a whole VM recently and got it back from the cloud no problem.

Costs me about £12 a month, unlimited storage, unlimited hosts, just you can't rsync, and you can't use NAS, unless you fudge it to run headless on the QNAP, which it never did for me, hence my disillusionment with the whole low-power NAS scene!

[doodab]

I've never really seen the point of spending money on a dedicated high end NAS box as they are quite expensive and a "real" server box seems to give far more bang for the buck.

I can see why people by the more basic £2-300 consumer ones, although personally I'd be inclined to go down the "real" server route even for this as I prefer the idea of commodity hardware I can upgrade and fix myself. I suppose that is my inner geek talking.

[stek]

I've never really seen the point of spending money on a dedicated high end NAS box as they are quite expensive and a "real" server box seems to give far more bang for the buck.

I can see why people by the more basic £2-300 consumer ones, although personally I'd be inclined to go down the "real" server route even for this as I prefer the idea of commodity hardware I can upgrade and fix myself. I suppose that is my inner geek talking.

Yeah me too, I want a SAN rather than NAS and whilst I've got it now rather cheaply in real terms, the power consumption is the main bugbear, the Apple Xserve/Raid solution I have now, two Xserves, SAN switch, Xserve RAID is as low power as it can be for an enterprise-ish SAN, it's still 700w....

Still, it's all remote access with LOM, so all can be powered up and down as needed, just doing a quick google, seems a 500w PC on 24/7 is about 25/30 quid a month, I can live with that tho it means my 4 quid a week home office claim is unrealistic lol!

[doodab]

Yeah me too, I want a SAN rather than NAS and whilst I've got it now rather cheaply in real terms, the power consumption is the main bugbear, the Apple Xserve/Raid solution I have now, two Xserves, SAN switch, Xserve RAID is as low power as it can be for an enterprise-ish SAN, it's still 700w....

Still, it's all remote access with LOM, so all can be powered up and down as needed, just doing a quick google, seems a 500w PC on 24/7 is about 25/30 quid a month, I can live with that tho it means my 4 quid a week home office claim is unrealistic lol!

If you need it you need it though.

I've looked at stuff like the HP P2000 or Dell EqualLogic iSCSI SANs to complement various the servers I've had but I've never been able to even vaguely justify the cost. It's not like they support really high IOPS, so if that's what you need a cheap commodity SSD is a far better bet, and on the capacity front the internal storage available has always been adequate for what I've actually needed to do. Of course another reason for it is to provide a shared disk for clustering FS but you can always set a server up as an iSCSI target for that, which is what I've ended up doing. I guess I am doing quite low end stuff really though, just dev environments and proving software configs and so on, so I'm not actually concerned that I'm not using "real" infrastructure.

The other thing with this stuff is the noise. It's OK if you have a dedicated space you can use as a machine room but sharing an office with it is a different kettle of fish.

I'd agree about the LOM though, once you get used to it it's hard to go back to self built "servers"