We are planning to purchase a new backup server to handle our growing needs (37 users, 15G database, 3.01 non SQL). And although we have already purchased software for backup (ExpandIT) we need to buid the machine itself. Please advise a configuration on a good backup server (no tape drive). Thanks! Denis Petrov
I was thinking of doing the same. I was looking at: http://www.globalcomputer.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=1005594&Sku=SYXS-ST-532187
We are considering a bit more advanced system, I wonder if it is an optimal solution: 250Gb SATA-150 10 (ten) hard drives to implement RAID 5 3 Firewire HD for off-site storage 1 Gb RAM (512Mbx2) AMD 64-bit Athlon 2800+ with other goodies comes to about $3,000.
Denis I’m not sure of your question, as the answer will be different. Is this a backup server to fall back to if your production server goes down, or is this a server to backup the production database to? Gary
Gary, We just installed 8 HD 15,000 RMP Navision-only server with RAID 1 which made a BIG difference in database performance and we hope that RAID 1 will allow us to run smoothly. The server I am talking about in this posting is to store daily compressed backups generated using ExpandIT as well us our non-Navision (Excel, Word, etc) files that are used by our 40+ users (about 60Gb in total at the present time). Thank you. Denis Petrov
I think you should scale your system according to its use as a File Server. Performing Navision Backups is quite a trivial task even for a perfectly normal workstation machine - provided it has enough disk space, of course. Whatever configuration you choose, if it is able to handle 40 users accesssing 60 GB of data, you can be sure it will also handle automated Navision Backups (just don’t forget the space!).
Denis, As the backup should be running at night, with no users active at the time, the number of users should not be relevant. All you need is a fast network connection between the 2 servers. As all you are doing is copying files, it is simply a file server. Since you are in the US, and if you are a public company, you also have to consider the Sarbanes-Oxley act and how it will affect you. Among other things, this would require a separate SECURED drive/share point to copy the backup files to. Given the funds, I would recommend a dedicated server for backups, separate from an active fileserver. This makes it cleaner in an audit. gud luk Gary
Gary that is exactly what we are shooting for - dedicated backup server. Since we are non-for-profit I assume we do not need to worry about Sarbanes-Oxley act…
One thing to consider - I was in on a conference call about Navision and hard drives. They suggested RAID 1 or 10 but not 5. I guess RAID 5 has the database split into chunks whereas Navision can handle that already. Django
Denis, As I understand Sarbanes-Oxley is for any publicly traded company. So since you are a NFP, I would presume you are not on any of the exchanges. In which case…“you lucky stiff.” BUT…you better check with your CFO, you don’t want to be blind-sided. * * * * Django, RAID-5 has been used by MANY companies for data, including VERY LARGE SAP installations (multi-hundred GB). In fact the installation docs for SAP R/3 (at least for prior versions) specified RAID-5 for the database files, the log files however are mirrored. The reason for RAID-5 for large installations is/was COST. A mirrored set would require 2x the number of drives, and when you are talking about a multi-hundred GIGAbyte db, thats a LOT of $$$$$$$. Because when you want performance, you want more spindles/drives. As I understand RAID, the only reason for not going with RAID-5 is that the controller has to compute the parity bit before writing to the disk set. That extra time increases the write time. Last time I had this discussion, mirrored-striping was generally accepted as being the best combination of protection (mirror) + performance (striping). But as I mentioned above, the cost is 2x the number of drives. For a server to simply store the backup files, RAID-5 should be sufficient. Gary
Gary, The Navision Partnersource States: “4. NEVER use RAID5.” See below for there findings… Navision Server Hardware Recommendations Note See TechKnowledge 33352 for a IBM Performance Report detailing the same findings. B. HDD subsystem recommendations: 1. Use SCSI/RAID controller with as many SCSI channels as possible. 2. If the disk controller has memory (caching), make sure that there is a battery on the controller. 3. Use RAID1 (disk mirroring), if you require extra resilience. 4. NEVER use RAID5. 5. NEVER use software RAID; you must use hardware RAID. 6. Turn off write back cache on the controller. Use all controller memory for read cache. 7. Use 4GB SCSI disks for building your storage space. See paragraph (C) for details. Click Here to read the whole shabang… http://www.mibuso.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2102&highlight=raid
But Gary is only supporting the use of RAID 5 on a backup server.
quote:
Originally posted by GaryN
Last time I had this discussion, mirrored-striping was generally accepted as being the best combination of protection (mirror) + performance (striping). But as I mentioned above, the cost is 2x the number of drives. For a server to simply store the backup files, RAID-5 should be sufficient.
yeah i see that now … ooops anyway the info can serve others in regards to hardware recommendations :)~
With the price of HDD dropping as they are, mirrored stripe for the data is financially practical for more companies. When I ran a small SAP installation, my production server had the database on a mirrored striped set for both protection and performance. I think the array set was 12 x 4GB drives (at the time the 4GB drives were the LARGEST drives available) for 24GB of usable storage (remember a mirrored set requires 2x the usable space, so 12drives*4GB=48GB of disk will mirror down by 1/2 = 24GB of usable space). I think this mirrored stripe RAID configuration was called RAID 1+0 or RAID-10 Later on our “sandbox” instance we put the db on RAID-5 with larger drives, because the performance was not as critical, and that kept the price of that server down. When you work for the CFO and he tells you to “SAVE MONEY,” you do what you have to do to save money. And while it was a performance compromised server, for the purpose it was used for we did not see any adverse performance impact due to the RAID-5 array. If you have only ONE instance of Navision, then I agree, mirror and stripe the drive set, or use multiple mirrored drive pairs, if at all possible. I still take issue with a blanket statement to NEVER use RAID-5. This is fine for the SMALL databases. But for the guys with LARGE databases, the drive array will get increasingly more expensive if you mirror the db drives. This can become a significant cost issue. For example, from item 7, using 4GB drives: For a 20GB db: - mirroring will require 10 drives (20GB db / 4GB drive * 2 mirror), - RAID-5 will require 6 drives (20 / 4 + 1 parity) A difference of 4 drives plus the array enclosure, controllers and rack space. And the difference gets bigger as the db size goes up. For a 40GB db: - mirroring will require 20 drives, - RAID-5 will require 11 drives A difference of 9 drives plus the enclosures, controllers, rack space, and more UPS requirement. Although in this instance, I would split the RAID-5 array into two RAID-5 arrays, for better safety. Even then, I would be using 12 drives for RAID-5 vs 20 drives for mirrored. While you can go to larger drives in a mirrored array to reduce the number of drives, then you will have less spindles. And less spindles = less performance. Ah the trade-offs. You lay the cards on the table, and let the boss and the users know the reason and impact of the different alternatives. Then you do the best you can, given the resources you have or are given. And if that means RAID-5…you do RAID-5. Gary
Your reasoning seems ok but now look at this example: Your database crashes for unknown reason. You call navision for support and give them the specs of your setup. You can bet your life they won’t investigate any further when the read the word “RAID-5” [;)] I would say stick with the guidelines.