Neil
Wed Mar 29 08:47:36 CST 2006
did you hear "Briscobar" <youcant@sendmespam.com> say in
news:O3AmKqzUGHA.5004@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl:
> If you're not kidding, you're rather dumb.
I'm goin with dumb
>It's very true that the
> sizes of hard drives, flash memory, and pretty much any other storage
> device, has risen quite dramatically over the last few years. However,
> if you haven't noticed, so has the size of many files people use on a
> regular basis. Gone are the days when you can store a week's worth of
> documents on a floppy. In fact, my company is outgrowing CDs, and
> we've just purchased 4 DVD writers so that we can keep up with the
> exponential increase in not only file size, but file count.
Once when I was young and stupid like the OP, I actually told someone that
"you'd never need more than a 40Mb HD. Anything beyond that is server
class". Well, I'm in good company. Billy G (although the rumour is
appearently false) was rumored to say the big "640k is enough for the
user", while Ken Olsen (DEC) _IS_ on record as having said "There is no
reason for any individual to have a computer in his home." and Thomas
Watson the Chairman of IBM in 1943 indicated the need for "5 computers
worldwide". The only good guesser so far has be Gordon Moore.
> Also, as
> Neil mentioned,
it is all about me after all
> I am also concerned with drive space due to SQL
> backups.
While our tape library encompasses 11 SDLT drives on a robotic arm, with
online backups competing the backups of 50 servers in under 8 hours (though
online is not a problem for us), I do not consider our data center a large
one, only medium sized. We have however reached our capacity and have been
kicking the tires of a LTO library. My concern is with the additional disk
based SQL backups that I must complete for restoring in development
enviornments and allowing the S&P teams to do thier jobs.
> We backup 5 databases every night to a file server, plus a
> tape drive. The tape gets pulled every night, but the backups on the
> server stay for a week (I guess this is company policy implemented
> years ago by the guy before the guy before me). Lately, we've been
> crunched for space. We can do one of three things: 1) Delete backups
> more frequently. 2) Get a bigger hard drive(s) for the server. 3) Make
> the backups take up less room. Due to the nature of the company, plus
> the owners' tight-wad-ness, we chose option 3.
Since the HP EVO 5000 recommends that you add drives in a set number based
on teh number of shelves and a number divisible by 8 (some other redundancy
thing) the actual number of drives added for a SAN can be a LOT more than
one offs. At a couple of grand a piece for the FC drives it's $50k to play.
Even simple RAID arrays will mean multiple drives must be added to an
enclosure simply to get 1 additional physical disk.
Yeah, disk spaces should never be a concern...
ps, I'm looking at these:
http://www.quest.com/imceda/index.asp
and
http://www.red-gate.com/products/sql_backup/index.htm
--
The InterNeil MCNGP Triple X
- There's always one more SOB than you counted on.