I'm in the process of putting together a new backup solution for one
of our file servers and I wanted to throw my idea out there and see
what sort of flaws there are in the plan, that I can't see myself.
We've got a server that has outgrown its current tape backup (40/80
dlt). The server will eventually pass 100gb of data. If I want to stay
with tapes, I have to move up to a 100/200 LTO option which puts the
drive cost alone at about $3000+, plus tapes. While this is definitely
a viable option, it's still somewhat limited. The data we have on this
server isn't going to compress much more than it already is, so
basically when we hit 100gb, we have to shell out for another new tape
My plan was to setup hotswap SATA drives and use backup to disk
folders in backupexec. More specifically I would probably go with a
good SATA raid controller (raidcore or 3ware), a single SATA removable
enclosure (+ trays for each drive) and 10 160gb SATA drives. This
would give me a ten day rotation of backups with plenty of future
space as our needs grow. It also allows for easier upgades in the
future, once we surpass the 160gb barrier the current drives would
have. All this for under $2000.
I am well aware of the potential hazards of using HD's as a backup
media as far as shock is concerned. If someone accidently drops one of
the drives, we could very well have lost that days backup. Beyond
this, are there any other potential problems anyone can point out in
Also, if anyone has a better solution, please feel free to share it.
From where I sit, tape backup is a dead horse. Average storage needs
in the industry has far outpaced what tape backup options can deliver
on a cost/size basis. I'm trying to be as progressive as possible
without making more problems for myself down the road. Thanks!