Our use case is as following: About 120 TB front-end data and a circular backup requirement of about 15 restore points in average (some jobs fewer others have more than 15).
We are looking to keep cost down (who is not) and scaling is important since the growth historically has been around 20% each year.
Currently we use a mix of old decommissioned SAN and new HPE MSA systems. Not very sensible and some of the old SAN’s use ridiculous amount of power.
Commercial dedup appliances like HPE storeonce are too expensive since we do not need many restore points.
Two options comes to mind:
1.Expand the MSA systems and retire the old SAN storage – and continue to buy MSA systems
2.Replace all with an entirely new solution
Instead of using general-purpose SAN storage like MSA, I am thinking dedicated servers with direct attached disk.
What would be best in a scale/performance/price balance? My gut tells me that I should stay away from the extremes (100+ DAS).
I could stay in the HPE world and by Apollo 4510 (up to 68 LFF). This single server would be enough to hold my entire backup for now.
Is this suggestion sensible?
Now for file systems…. I had imagined that I would install Windows Server 2016 and use the REFS filesystem. Recently I have heard that it will not handle large backups well. Would you guys play it safe and go for traditional periodic full backup (my suggested system would not have enough IO to handle large merges otherwise).
I had problems with REFS but I formatted it with 4K I am yet to try 64k
What about Windows Server Storage Spaces? Should I go for that or buy an “old fashioned” RAID controller?
Sorry for the long post