On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:02:54PM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > Like I said, it's several dedicated, mostly web servers with users > > uploaded content on one of them (that part is expected to grow). None > > of them is in the same data center. > > Okay, so thats fine. > > I would still not be comfortable mixing production stuff with a backup > server, but I think you could get away with it. > > But then you need a different backup server for the production stuff on the > server and the files from the fileserver service that you plan to run on it, > cause…
Those files that will be on file sharing service are not critical. They are disposable and therefore doesn't have to be backed up. > … no again: RAID is not a backup. > > RAID is about maximizing performance and/or minimizing downtime. > > Its not a backup. And thats about it. I've never thought that RAID is backup. It's not. Server I'm trying to set up is backup. It's not perfect solution, but is better then nothing. Yes, in a perfect world I would set another one in case something happened to this one, but that's the road I can't go. So if two disks in same mirror pair dies simultaneously I'll lose all data. I'm aware of that. RAID, however, provides certain level of redundancy. If one disk dies, I didn't lose data. I will rebuild it. It all comes to "what if". What if you lose production, backup server and backup of your backup server? Well, that is not very likely, but still can happen. I won't have that backup of backup, but will be muck more happier then now, having no backup at all. > If you follow this, you need two boxes… But if you need two boxes, why > just don´t do the following: > > 1) virtualization host > > 2) backup host > > to have a clear separation and an easier concept. Sure you could replicate > the production data of the mixed production/dataserver to somewhere else, > but going down this route it seems to be that you add workaround upon > workaround upon workaround. > > I find it way easier if the backup server does backup (and nothing else!) > and the production server does backup (and nothing else). And removing > complexity removes possible sources of human errors as well. > > In case you go above route, I wouldn´t even feel to uncomfortable if you > ran some test VMs on the virtualization host. But that depends on how > critical the production services on it are. > > Thanks, > -- > Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de > GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 That does make sense, having two different machines for two types of work, but I don't have them right now. But when my boss recovers from this recent spending, I'll try to acquire another one. Regards, Veljko -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120910153838.gf9...@angelina.example.org
