backing up client backups, yes no ?

[capall 0]

If you needed to restore a client from the backup of a client backup, where should  you or can you keep the backup of the client backup

 

 

Keeping in mind that your client backups could be on either the OS drive backed up with Server backup to a USB with the OS drive or on a data drive synced to a USB drive and a lot of people prefer to back up the OS (and OS only) to its dedicated drive, leaving the clients backups only option to synced to a USB drive

 

2 scenarios exist that you would want to restore you client from the backup of a client backup.

 

1. You had your client backups on the OS drive and you've just lost both the OS and the client

2. You had you client backup on a data drive and you just lost your data drive

 

capall

 

 

edit

or another way to ask this is; if you needed to restore a client form the backup of the client backup, where can this backup (of the client backup) reside (in the event you've lost both the client and it whs2011 client backup)

[ikon 439]

Just a note that it's quite possible to include the Client PC Backups in the Windows Server Backup, even if it is on a data drive.

[jmwills 284]

The clients backups are on a RAID'd volume.  Not worrying about losing them and I would NEVER put them on the same drive as the OS.

 

(and yes I know RAID is not a backup solution)  However there comes a point where you have to say, I've got the bases covered.  If the entire house burns down, PC backups aren't very high up on my list.

[gcoupe 5]

The amounts of data that I have mean that I can include the Client PCs Backup Folder in the list of items to be included in my Server Backup. So I have a backup stored offsite in the event that the house goes up in flames.

[FiLiNuX 30]

I don't want to sound argumentative but I have heard several people on here say "RAIDS are not a backup solution" which is not always true.  I do fully agree a  RAID should not be the ONLY form of backup used IMHO. Unless it is a performance based array (ie:RAID0) a RAID's purpose "is a way of storing the same data in different places (thus, redundantly) on multiple hard disks".  I have heard people say RAID is for fault tolerance to keep a machine running which in SOME cases may be true but how many people on here keep their OS's on a RAID vs people who have a RAID so if a drive fails their data is safe and backed up.

[ikon 439]

Well, I'm going to stand by "RAID is not a backup", not even RAID1. For me RAID is about redundancy and resiliency. And just a point of clarification: only RAID1 and RAID10 write data redundantly to multiple places, and the real purpose of that is to allow the server to keep running until a faulty drive can be replaced. RAID5 does write data to multiple drives, but it doesn't write multiple copies of files.

[FiLiNuX 30]

the real purpose of that is to allow the server to keep running until a faulty drive can be replaced.  

 

 

Says who?  If that was the case in most situations why are the majority of people who have RAIDS (especially in a home server environment) buying hard drives with massive capacities for non-OS storage that makes me jealous?   I would say the REAL  purpose of a RAID is to have a backup of ANY SORT of data on 1 or more separate hdd's should a hdd fail.  

 

I am in COMPLETE agreement with you (and all of the other very knowledgeable people here) that a RAID is not a COMPLETE backup solution but to me it is part of one.  

 

I just looked back at my earlier comment and realized this is close to being a RAIC.  A  Redundant Array Of Independent Comments.

Edited July 21, 2013 by FiLiNuX

[ikon 439]

Actually, the statement about RAID being a way to keep a server running until a faulty drive can be replaced came from more than 1 server storage seminar/course I've been on over the years. So, as far as who says so: the makers of the equipment and those who teach about it.

 

As far as "why are the majority of people who have RAIDS (especially in a home server environment) buying hard drives with massive capacities" is concerned, I don't really understand the question. Are you trying to suggest that people would use only smaller drives if the purpose of RAID is to allow time to replace a faulty drive?

[capall 0]

thanks guys, however it really a RAID topic I started.

 

I'm thinking the only time you'd need the backup of the client backups is when you lose both the client and server at the same, which would be fire, flood, lightning and hence taking out all you onsite computers.

 

Then I think gcoupe's comment was about right, in that it should be on, and is sufficient to be on, your offsite disk. No need for it to be on the local backup disk.

[ikon 439]

I keep them on both the onsite and offsite disks.