Hi there,
Basically i work in an office and recently the issue of backing up the machines was brought to the senior management. At present the only form of backups are people burning their files/programs to a dvd or copying to a usb stick and this isn't done daily but rather when they feel like doing it. Not a very reliable system as a complete pc failure could render weeks worth of work being lost if an employee was lax in backing up their files.
We have contacted 2 local pc companies and both have come up with 2 different solutions.
The first solution comes in the form of a back up system machine that is added to the existing network. This machine will naturally have UPS and will back up selected files and/or directories for each machine on the network. From what i understand from this solution each machine is a standalone but data is stored from your machine on a different site.
Now with this option i was quoted £1700. When i looked at the quote it was basically a machine with 1tb hdd space windows 7 and a copy of something call Second Copy 7 software. To charge £1700 in total (includes on site installation) seems absurd. I could build a machine, install this second copy 7 add it to the network and configure it myself. Not totally impressed with this option.
The second option consisted of having a separate NAS (network attached storage). This Nas would contain 4x hdd configured in RAID-5 configuration. Also there would be a 2nd NAS device located that would also mirror the first NAS device for added redundancy. Now it has been stated to me by other members of staff in the office that this would also act like a server. In that if one persons machine for some reason exploded they could login to any other machine in the network and continue work as normal because all their programs would be installed on this NAS. I couldn't find anything to this effect in the IT companies proposal to us to this but i will confirm. So if in fact these NAS devices are also functioning as a centralised server in which people would be running their programs off then this would be a more complicated and better back up option right? Hence justifying a more expensive price of £2300.
I just wanted people's opinion on both methods. It seems to me that the first solution is very simple and effective at backing up files and directories only. The disadvantage is that if a machine failed, although their data would be backed up they would have to wait for a new machine and reinstall all their programs meaning increased downtime.
The second solution seems to provide backup capabilities but also the role of a server (to be confirmed) in that if someones machine blew up they could just go to another machine, login to the centralised server with their username and password and continue work as normal because all their programs and files would be on the server.
Sorry for the long post but i am a bit confused here and just wanted some clarification (or other options) from the ocuk gods.
Thanks in advance.
Basically i work in an office and recently the issue of backing up the machines was brought to the senior management. At present the only form of backups are people burning their files/programs to a dvd or copying to a usb stick and this isn't done daily but rather when they feel like doing it. Not a very reliable system as a complete pc failure could render weeks worth of work being lost if an employee was lax in backing up their files.
We have contacted 2 local pc companies and both have come up with 2 different solutions.
The first solution comes in the form of a back up system machine that is added to the existing network. This machine will naturally have UPS and will back up selected files and/or directories for each machine on the network. From what i understand from this solution each machine is a standalone but data is stored from your machine on a different site.
Now with this option i was quoted £1700. When i looked at the quote it was basically a machine with 1tb hdd space windows 7 and a copy of something call Second Copy 7 software. To charge £1700 in total (includes on site installation) seems absurd. I could build a machine, install this second copy 7 add it to the network and configure it myself. Not totally impressed with this option.
The second option consisted of having a separate NAS (network attached storage). This Nas would contain 4x hdd configured in RAID-5 configuration. Also there would be a 2nd NAS device located that would also mirror the first NAS device for added redundancy. Now it has been stated to me by other members of staff in the office that this would also act like a server. In that if one persons machine for some reason exploded they could login to any other machine in the network and continue work as normal because all their programs would be installed on this NAS. I couldn't find anything to this effect in the IT companies proposal to us to this but i will confirm. So if in fact these NAS devices are also functioning as a centralised server in which people would be running their programs off then this would be a more complicated and better back up option right? Hence justifying a more expensive price of £2300.
I just wanted people's opinion on both methods. It seems to me that the first solution is very simple and effective at backing up files and directories only. The disadvantage is that if a machine failed, although their data would be backed up they would have to wait for a new machine and reinstall all their programs meaning increased downtime.
The second solution seems to provide backup capabilities but also the role of a server (to be confirmed) in that if someones machine blew up they could just go to another machine, login to the centralised server with their username and password and continue work as normal because all their programs and files would be on the server.
Sorry for the long post but i am a bit confused here and just wanted some clarification (or other options) from the ocuk gods.
Thanks in advance.
Last edited: