I was going to say...there are PLENTY of backup solutions which can use the
NAS unit. As for security...you can easily use file lock utilities (cheap
route) or use the native file security function within XP (or Vista). If
someone is really going to steal his NAS from his home...a fireproof safe
isn't going to help one bit. Heck, people can steal data (and physical
drives) from large corporations. Unless he wants to also invest in cameras,
secureID locks, or other "security measures"...it's a HOME system.
The native utility will work just fine for what you want to do with the NAS
box.
- Bernd
-----Original Message-----
From: Pindell, Tim P [mailto:TPindell@otterbein.edu]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 2:13 PM
To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
Subject: RE: DML: OT: Network / Server
In I.T., there are few perfect solutions. There are usually just better
solutions with compromises everywhere.
For backups, I'd run a daily or weekly differential (or incremental)
backup and a weekly or monthly full backup against the disk volume of
his choice and then write the files to a suitable media (CD, DVD, DAT,
DLT, LTO whatever he has.)
I simply use native Windows NTBackup (mini version of Backup Exec in
XP/2000/2003) at home and create a .bak file that I write to CD (or
DVD.) NTBackup can be scripted to run a certain type of job at a certain
time either to tape (only removable media it can use) and be done with
it, or to a directory where you can then dump that .bak file to whatever
media you have. Its simple, cheap and baked into the Windows OS. I'm
sure somebody could probably come up with a better approach, but I like
native utilities.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of
> Barry Oliver
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: dakota-truck@dakota-truck.net
> Subject: Re: DML: OT: Network / Server
>
>
> Perfect, if he hooks it up to run inside his fireproof safe
> [with adequate ventillation of course] but it does not
> address data security [backups]. If there is no
> irreplaceable data on there, then all is good.
>
>
> Bernd D. Ratsch wrote:
> > Perfect. All the storage you'll need (for a while) and easy to
> > use...cost is less than a RAID card and drives as well.
> >
> > - Bernd
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pindell, Tim P [mailto:TPindell@otterbein.edu]
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 9:47 AM
> > To: dml@dakota-truck.net
> > Subject: RE: DML: OT: Network / Server
> >
> >
> >
> > I figured I'd just throw this added info out there just re-iterate,
> > reinforce and confuse things further:
> >
> > Out of the RAID levels we've discussed so far, only RAID5 and RAID1
> > will allow the failure of a single disk without loss of data.
> >
> > With RAID0 (disk striping w/o parity), the loss of one
> drive means the
> > loss of the data on the array. Best performance and storage
> value, but
> > no parity so no redundancy. Minimum 2 drives.
> >
> > With RAID5 (disk striping WITH parity), parity data are
> used so that
> > the stripes from the missing drive can be recalculated on the fly
> > allowing time to rescue data and replace the drive. Minimum
> 3 drives.
> >
> > With RAID1 (disk mirroring), the same data is written to
> both drives.
> > Read performance is typically faster than write performance
> here since
> > they act as a RAID0 array on reads. One drive can fail with no data
> > loss. Minimum of 2 drives required for the basic set-up.
> RAID1 doubles
> > the cost of storage since 2 drives are needed, but you only
> get half
> > of the total disk capacity.
> >
> > There are other RAID configurations but these are the
> classics. The
> > others are generally variations or combinations of these.
> RAID10 is
> > one of my favorites: Stripes on mirrors. Pure disky sweetness.
> > Minimum 4 disks.
> >
> > I prefer a hardware controller with a battery-backed cache
> to off-load
> > I/O processing and improve performance. Hardware RAID of
> that level
> > could be overkill depending on the use of the box. >shrug<
> >
> > With all that crap being said, I'm wondering if something like this
> > might be a good simple purpose-built option:
> >
> > http://www.cdwg.com/shop/products/default.aspx?EDC=1131832
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 02 2007 - 15:23:18 EDT