Steve Erbach
erbachs at gmail.com
Wed Jan 13 08:39:16 CST 2010
John,
I was mistaken about the setup of Janet's server: its entire hard disk (>500
GB) is RAID 5, but it's been partitioned into a 70 GB applications drive and
about 500 GB for data. My mistake.
The server is a bona fide new HP server with all the fancy-schmancy extras
like redundant power supplies, SAS 2.5" drives in a RAID 5 array,
sneeze-through wind vents, and chrome fender dents.
The server had some problems right out of the box because of a faulty UPS.
Caused quite a few crashes early in the game.
This was the first SBS 2008 installation for these guys. Clearly they don't
know much, but the owner of the store did them a favor.
Perhaps the idea of a bootable backup disk is a chimera. I was saying to
Janet last night that if it were such a good idea then why don't more
companies use it? I understand that server farms would be a bit of a
poser...but, again, this situation seems tailor-made for a bootable
backup...something that will cause the de facto network administrator the
fewest headaches.
As far as the fellow who recommended 12 GB of RAM on the server, he's
brilliant but impossible to get ahold of. He also seemed to think that just
regular home edition Casper would do the trick for the server. I don't have
the knowledge of servers to know WHY home edition Casper isn't good enough.
I'm going to check with Janet in a few minutes. Apparently, Casper
Technical Edition started a backup last night with no problems. I don't
know if it actually finished, though.
>> --I hate it when that happens. If you can, go in and scrub Acronis out
of the system files and registry and then repair VSS. Is Acronis not willing
to help? <<
I've helped Janet find some technical help on-line. I don't know whether
Acronis is willing to help. Janet is a bit impatient and would far rather
have someone on the phone on whom she could focus her laser-like discontent.
The pace of emails and such is like slow death for her. But I think she
has made some progress on the VSS front. At least that Casper backup
started last night. That means that the Windows VSS appears to be operating
and that the Acronis custom (bastardized) version has been eradicated. I
just wonder whether it's like poison ivy and is just waiting for next season
to grow again!
>> I recently picked up a new client that had previously been sold a
"server" that was little more than a cheap PC kit from a mail order catalog.
Piece of crap. It went down and I temporarily replaced it with a used Dell
Dimension (it was all I had on hand) that I had that was ready to be
scrapped while waiting for their new server. The Dell ran their
system better! <<
I spent a fair amount of my time in the computer biz selling PCs ('83 -
'90). I know for a fact that there were 286 class machines used as servers
in the old days, before Microsoft acquired NetManager or whatever it was
called and turned it into Windows networking. Granted, the things that have
been added to servers these days are definite advancements in the art...but
"servers" could be and were all sorts of various systems. I had a
plain-jane 486 as a Netware file server for some years in our home office.
Thanks for commiserating, Mr. President!
Steve Erbach
Neenah, WI
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 9:52 PM, John Bartow <john at winhaven.net> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> >> It's fairly obvious that
> 1. the company they hired to supply the hardware and install the system
> this
> system
> Or <<
>
> Doesn't look like you finished your thought, there, pardner!
>
> --Bad writing is all ;) "did not do their job well."
>
> >> If their server has a quality RAID system... <<
>
> That appears to be debatable. What I was confused by was that the guys who
> installed the server (which took a HELL of a long time to do...formatting
> the RAID array took something like 12 hours on-site. They didn't have the
> smarts to do that at their shop!) speced out such a small RAID array...I
> believe it's only 70 GB. The 500 GB data drive doesn't have its own RAID
> array. Why they couldn't have made a RAID array to provide 500 GB is
> beyond
> me. I can't believe that they RECOMMENDED it. How is the business owner
> supposed to know?
>
> --Considering how new this is it is hard to believe they installed 70GB
> drives!
>
> They also speced out only 4 GB of RAM. My old network admin had Janet's
> boss buy another 8 GB right away and that fixed some of the performance
> issues.
>
> --I think having this guy help out Janet at some cost is worth it. They
> will
> probably trust him in the future because what he has done so far has given
> them reason to.
>
> I think that Janet has tried to get reliable image backups with so many
> different versions of Casper and Acronis now, that she's run into the
> problem of the VSS being hosed because of Acronis and not being able to
> completely uninstall it.
>
> --I hate it when that happens. If you can, go in and scrub Acronis out of
> the system files and registry and then repair VSS. Is Acronis not willing
> to
> help?
>
> This all makes Janet very crabby at times.
>
> --Can't blame her for that.
>
> I simply fail to see why such a small server should have so many backup
> problems. There's something going on here that the various software
> support
> folks just aren't touching. That is, Casper and Acronis.
>
> --To tell truth it sounds like they got screwed by the hardware people
> right
> from the get-go. Did they custom build this server? Did your old network
> guy
> mention anything about non-standard hardware? Mind sending me the name of
> who did this (offlist) so I never waste my time meeting with them about
> sub-contracting? I recently picked up a new client that had previously been
> sold a "server" that was little more than a cheap PC kit from a mail order
> catalog. Piece of crap. It went down and I temporarily replaced it with a
> used Dell Dimension (it was all I had on hand) that I had that was ready to
> be scrapped while waiting for their new server. The Dell ran their system
> better!
>
> Steve Erbach
> Neenah, WI
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 12:05 PM, John Bartow <john at winhaven.net> wrote:
>
> > Steve,
> > My comments:
> > A server of this magnitude should be comprised of a RAID system that is
> > capable of recovering from on HD failure without hassle.
> >
> > Acronis has a version specifically for SBS. SBS has a lot of things going
> > on
> > that workstations and regular server does not.
> >
> > While I agree that having a bootable image backup is a great idea, I also
> > think that if the imaging idea is not working out then move on and depend
> > on
> > the RAID to be your HD disaster recovery method. Regular backups are
> mostly
> > for file recovery and, in lieu of an image backup, should probably only
> be
> > considered useful for that. Most backup apps include a disaster recovery
> > option where they can be booted from removal media and rebuild the system
> > from the backups.
> >
> > <soapbox>
> > I realize this is post mortem but the planning for a
> server/client/network
> > is the number one most important part. It's fairly obvious that
> > 1. the company they hired to supply the hardware and install the system
> > this
> > system
> > Or
> > 2. if they did, the person who made the decision to not follow their
> > recommendations
> > did not do their job well.
> >
> > I feel Janet's (and your vicarious) pain on this :o(
> > <off soapbox>
> >
> > So in conclusion:
> > If there the server has a quality RAID system and you can't get Acronis
> SBS
> > version to operate effectively - give up on the imaging and move to a
> more
> > simple file backup system. SBS has one built in. I wish I could stop in
> and
> > make it all better for Janet! Best of luck my friend!
>