@JaredBusch Hmmm, the post was mostly meant to also try and help ppl coming from, say, ownCloud 5 - they will get in trouble with the apps, finding the old tarballs etcetera.

If you're on 8 or 9, there is not much news because it isn't, or rather- shouldn't be too hard. Would really like to know what problems you had as we have to fix those 😉

Note that Nextcloud 11.0.2 comes early next week, Monday probably.

@gjacobse said in Using a VHD over (other) file for storage:

@MattSpeller said in Using a VHD over (other) file for storage:

TL;DR I'm not sure I'd do it (or why you are) but it would work just fine.

TL;DR? You reply twice, but didn't read it?

Honestly I just rambled quickly and forgot wtf you asked about XD

Nice writeup @shannon

@jospoortvliet said in NextCloud AMA Feb. 22nd!:

@scottalanmiller well Eastern time, so that should be in 40 minutes, yes? 16:00/4pm Berlin time, I have in my calendar 😉

fscking timezones, I know...

1600 here, too.

@danp said in Why We Recommend Against OpenFiler:

@scottalanmiller said in Why We Recommend Against OpenFiler:

I saw it mentioned in another ancient threat.

freudian slip? 😉

LOL, indeed.

Cool. They seem to have really come through.

pKIH8je.png

@scottalanmiller said in Matching Drives for RAID:

*Under the Hood: RAID arrays effectively use all of their devices in lock step. Whether you have two drives or eighty in your array, all of them go and look for one block of data together and they all way for the slowest drive in the array to return its block before continuing on. When all drives are identical, they all read and write at the same time and we basically get full performance from every device.

A minor change to be more accurate

*Under the Hood: RAID arrays effectively use all of their devices in lock step. Whether you have two drives or eighty in your array, all of them go and look for one block of data together and they all wait for the slowest drive in the array to return its block before continuing on. When all drives are identical makes and models, the differences are much smaller between them and we get closer to full performance from every device.

Of course, in more modern systems, the use of advanced LVMs instead of older partitions makes this a little more flexible so that more control over the process can exist. But all of the core problems still exist.

Some vendors try to market this mechanism as "RAID virtualization", which isn't a completely crazy name due to the layers of abstraction, but it makes it sound valuable when, in reality, it is not. RAID virtualization when used for the purpose of enabling hot or live RAID array growth is generally a good idea. Used as a kludge to enable bad ideas, it remains bad.

Can we get some tags on this post?

URE is one I would love to see added.
Thanks

@Dashrender said in Windows 10 Mobile Cannot reinstall Skype Preview:

add some tags to the post to make it easier to find in the future.

I thought I did. Must have fallen off. I should use better sticky tape

@JaredBusch said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:

@scottalanmiller said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:

@dr.funkenstein said in Storage Provisioning For a Single Hyper-V Server Setup:

I installed Hyper-V Core, and I'm facing a though time configuring... The server is at a remote location, and connect to the remote network via VPN, and am trying to use tools like Server Manager, Hyper-V manager, and even 5nine.. Server Manager itself works fine, but when I launch tools (such a Computer Management) from within Server Manager, I get random access denied messages .. Even after adding it as a Trusted host

Why are you doing things over a VPN? Stop doing that, that's likely your problem.

Even better, this sounds like a MSP office he is working from, so they probably have all these VPN connections to various clients open.

That's super scary, MSPs using VPNs is how malware is going to suddenly take over the world. Cross contamination all over the place.

@ntozier said in Buffalo NAS Return Policy Review:

Maybe the person you spoke to didn't realize if was just for a single drive? I mean I find the some non-technical users think of a Tower as the "hard drive". 🙂

Here is a quote from him: "And that was for the entire NAS with two 4TB drives (I only needed one drive)!!!"

@Dashrender said in Announcing the Death of RAID:

@scottalanmiller said in Announcing the Death of RAID:

What you are thinking of is my recommendation for supported drives that are part of the system itself if you are going for a warranty supported system like from Dell or HPE. Bringing your own drives would push you to vendors like SuperMicro where you can mix and match for the best performance, cost and features.

I want to ask why we can't/shouldn't use consumer class drives in a Dell or HPE server, but I think the answer might be - because if you're paying for that level of support, why are you not going all in?

Is that right?

i.e. if you want to run your own performance/cost factors, you're better off starting with a SuperMicro, is that what you're saying?

Yes. That's what I mean.

One of the confusing pieces here is that Linux actually does things more clearly but the Windows world is so confusing that if you carry that confusion into the Linux world, it makes things harder. Windows rarely uses or discloses the names of their product components. So Windows Software RAID is used to describe part of the Windows OS. But what if you have software RAID on Windows that is not Windows Software RAID? Windows Admins typically have no good terminology to discuss this, even though it is common. They just.... don't know what's going on and don't document it. But in Linux, we have the terms on hand all of the time (MD, ZFS, whatever.) So the Linux side isn't as bad as it seems, but if you are used to a weird blend of generic names being used as if they are specifics from the Windows world and assume that the Linux world is just as crazy, then it seems crazy.

@tjatwood109 said in ZFS is Perfectly Safe on Hardware RAID:

@scottalanmiller

Thanks - I will proceed without using ZFS - I prefer hardware RAID.

Tim

ZFS is perfectly fine with hardware RAID, if you like ZFS' features otherwise (like zsend is nice) then there's no reason to avoid it. If you don't plan to use any unique features, then XFS is my "go to" choice by default. Very fast, very stable.

@coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@coliver said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@travisdh1 said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@dafyre said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

@scottalanmiller said in Why the SMB Still Needs Hardware RAID:

The most common RAIN approach that I see is taking all disks in the pool, noting their nodal presence and using mirroring to distribute the data so that data mirrors never go to the same disk and/or the same node. So a little like a networked RAID 1E but with more flexibility and the option to add nodal separation and performance testing so that data moves to where it is used.

Are you aware of any open source RAIN systems?

Gluster and Swift

I think Ceph and Lustre may be two others.

Lustre is RAIN, but is closed. Gluster was the open replacement for Lustre.

Just a quick search showed that Lustre was GPL 2.0, not sure if that is new or not.

Oh wow, must be new. It was crazy expensive in 2006 when we were really investigating it. That's awesome.

Ah looks like it went open source in 2010.

Oh cool, so I remember things well then. I'm just out of date. Gluster probably forced their hand, why would anyone consider Lustre when it was closed source? The answer was probably... they wouldn't and didn't.

Yep, I'd assume that was the case. Especially when it is a such a specific, and at the time, niche market.

And when Gluster went directly after them, even in name.