Backup and Server Redundancy

Backup and Server Redundancy

Post by doa_c » Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:07:09


Hi there!!!

My company has one main Netware 5.00d server (productive with 150
Users) and 2 non-productive servers (also 5.00d).

We currently do a daily, weekly, monthly and annual backup of the
productive server in a disk-disk-tape backup.

The productive server is in a different tree to the others (network
was setup many years ago, without prior netware knowledge).

We are now at a stage where any server downtime can cause HUGE losses.
As we have no redundancy at the moment, it is a precarious situation
when anything goes wrong with the productive server.


I am looking into the possibilities of server redundancy for at least
the productive server.

My questions are:
1. What backup systems can be recommended for something like this?
2. What redundancy/clustering systems can be recommended?
3. What licensing would be required?
4. Can we build onto the current system, or is a "new start" better?

Any help in this would be greatly appreciated.
 
 
 

Backup and Server Redundancy

Post by www.JimWil » Sat, 15 Jan 2005 06:15:05


I'm looking at the same thing - standby (mirror) server vs clustering.
From what I (quickly) saw is that clustering uses a common storage pool -
outside of the server box itself. Yes, No?

 
 
 

Backup and Server Redundancy

Post by David Gers » Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:13:16


Ideally, yes. You can do it with shared SCSI (one host adapter in each
server, connected to a chain of shared disks), iSCSI, or some kind of
fibrechannel SAN setup. iSCSI looks to be a good way to build an
inexpensive cluster.

--
| David Gersic XXXX@XXXXX.COM |
| I'm so broke I'm thinking of starting my own government... |
| Email address is munged to avoid spammers. Remove the underscores. |
 
 
 

Backup and Server Redundancy

Post by www.JimWil » Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:03:26


Why, when desiring to have redundancy (many 9's of uptime) is an externally
located (single) storage pool ideal? With two servers, each with a host
adapter, running to a shared storage pool (of redundant drives) - isn't
there at least some piece of the puzzle that is non-redundant (leading to a
single point of failure)?

I'd think that two servers, fully supplied to stand on their own, possibly
located apart from each other, communicating changes to each's storage pool
would be preferred. One box might be considered master and the other slave
or they could load balance as equals. Is this type of setup used?
 
 
 

Backup and Server Redundancy

Post by www.JimWil » Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:06:31

avid Gersic < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote:


Interesting stuff - thanks David.

If/when something changes for me in this arena I'll report back.
 
 
 

Backup and Server Redundancy

Post by Alex Tof » Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:34:25

If you're feeling flush, why not push the boat out and get 2 SANS, then
you can set up NSS mirroring. That way you have multiple cluster nodes and
multiple mirrored storage devices - although most storage boxes have a lot of
redundancy built into them, that's one certain way to eliminate any single
point of failure.


Alex Toft
Networked Systems Consultant
Leeds Met University
Cold & Rainy England
 
 
 

Backup and Server Redundancy

Post by www.JimWil » Wed, 26 Jan 2005 09:16:11


Champagne tastes on a beer budget - LOL

It certainly is good to here some alternatives tho.