pc Optimum hosting solution for FM Server 12 on a Windows 2008 VM with 3 drives

[oilcan]

We are currently hosting from a VM that has 2x75GB SAN drives and 1x250GB NAS.

 

We are running the OS and installed applications (including FM Server) from C (75GB SAN#1).

Our solutions are currently being hosted on E (75GB SAN#2).

Backups, both full and progressive, are being stored on D(250GB NAS).

 

Would this be considered an optimum setup?  I feel like it would be better to host the solution from C, do progressive backups to E (from SAN to SAN, since it's a more frequent transaction), and full backups to D.  However, our IT department has been discouraging having our hosted solution on C.  My take is that if the VM goes down, we'd likely be restoring from the progressive backup anyway rather than the potentially corrupt hosted files. 

 

Thoughts?  I'm willing to override IT if there is enough evidence that my proposed setup would be better; there aren't any FileMaker people in IT, so they may not be able to advise us properly on the matter.

[Wim Decorte]

No no no no: don't do the backups (regular or progressive) to the NAS!!  That's just too fragile.  SAN is fine and supported, NAS is not.  I do believe that is explicitly mentioned in the server best practices too.  SANs will operate at internal disk speeds if they are of good quality.  NASs will operate at Gigabit max which is a lot slower and carries a lot more risk for hiccups and trouble.

 

A full optimum would have the OS on C, FMS on D, live files on E and all backups on F, all of those SAN in your environment.  You can use the NAS to push a finished backup too, but not as a backup destination itself.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

We are running the OS and installed applications (including FM Server) from C (75GB SAN#1).

Our solutions are currently being hosted on E (75GB SAN#2).

Backups, both full and progressive, are being stored on D(250GB NAS).

 

Would this be considered an optimum setup?

 In a word, No.  Please note Wim's advice.  I want to second that and emphasize that NAS is not a good option for use with FIleMAker Server, especially for something as critical as backups.

 

Steven

[oilcan]

Thanks for the advice.   Our IT department has really been driving the security of their NAS setup down my throat, saying that it is as secure and safe as the SAN...but again, nobody there speaks FileMaker.  Unfortunately we are not able to get the space we need to maintain our backups on SAN unless I elect to significantly decrease the backup intervals, as we're hosting approximately 12GB of live data (lots of images and documents).  I had to bend over backwards to get the SAN resources we currently have (not their standard practice to issue more than the base 75GB SAN for OS).  I had been running 7 daily backups, 4 weekly backups, and 3 monthly backups; if I cut those in half and go to one monthly backup I could potentially squeeze everything onto the secondary SAN and host from the OS drive.

 

Presuming the most important issue is the backups on NAS, I think my best case scenario with the resources available will be to host from OS SAN#1, run all backups to SAN#2, and, well, basically ignore the NAS I guess except for as a space to manipulate copies of the database files or something.  I probably won't be able to get the optimum setup suggested by Wim, simply because of our finite capacity to obtain the SAN resources from IT.  I'm now just looking for a passable setup; sorry if our limitations are painful to your sensibilities!  If I'm truly making a mistake with this new configuration, I will return to the IT dieties for a second round of pleading, though I don't remain hopeful for much of a change in the short term.

[Wim Decorte]

 I probably won't be able to get the optimum setup suggested by Wim, simply because of our finite capacity to obtain the SAN resources from IT.  

 

You should never have to compromise on backups.  It does not matter whether IT "speaks FM" or not.  The only question is: how critical is the data in the solution and how critical is the captured workflow in the solution.  In other words: if it all went belly-up; how much would it cost the company.  That is a risk assessment that needs to be done by the business owners under your guidance.  I'm sure IT is aware of similar risk assessments for other systems that they run.  If there are no risk assessments it is high time some were started!

 

Base on those answers IT needs to:

- give you want you require (the ARE a service department) if extra SAN space is "business value beneficial"

- and sign off on the risk assessment and acknowledge the potential risk and cost

 

No IT department is going to refuse being part of a risk assessment.  After that the conversation becomes a whole lot easier.

[bledrew1]

Just came across this thread and had a question for the person who asked the question. Did I read it correctly to say that at the time you were doing Progressive Backups to a NAS? Yes, I know "No. No. No.". We couldn't even figure out how to create a Filemaker data path that would validate.

 

They want us to show what won't work (NAS & LUN) as part of justifying what we know will work (SAN or RAID?). We're doing proof of concept as when the project is fully implemented we're talking about at least 12T of data, mostly art in managed external containers.

 

Thanks. Bill

 

P.S. by the way, how did it turn out after you got the good word from Wim and Steven?