Just heard MSP say...
-
I don't see a problem. the logic is fine 10K is faster spinning than 7.2K. cut them some slack!
-
It's degrading the array to rebuild it to move to faster disks.
... . . .....
-
$5 says you lose another drive during the rebuild.
-
If I recall this isn't the first asinine thing this MSP has said done... why are you still paying them?
-
@coliver I don't have that choice, this isn't being done, but was "if we had done this....."
-
@hobbit666 said:
I don't see a problem. the logic is fine 10K is faster spinning than 7.2K. cut them some slack!
WTF kind of logic makes you think intentionally breaking and rebuilding a RAID5 array 4 times is a good thing?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@hobbit666 said:
I don't see a problem. the logic is fine 10K is faster spinning than 7.2K. cut them some slack!
WTF kind of logic makes you think intentionally breaking and rebuilding a RAID5 array 4 times is a good thing?
I also did the math on this (because this unit is the one with the failed disk already) that we'd have a 27% chance of failure, just on a single repair, which is why we bought a new Synology with 4-1TB SSD in RAID 5.
And restored from backup to it.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@hobbit666 said:
I don't see a problem. the logic is fine 10K is faster spinning than 7.2K. cut them some slack!
WTF kind of logic makes you think intentionally breaking and rebuilding a RAID5 array 4 times is a good thing?
If it was a RAID 10.. Maybe. RAID 5 No way in hell is this a good idea.
-
@Jason said:
@JaredBusch said:
@hobbit666 said:
I don't see a problem. the logic is fine 10K is faster spinning than 7.2K. cut them some slack!
WTF kind of logic makes you think intentionally breaking and rebuilding a RAID5 array 4 times is a good thing?
If it was a RAID 10.. Maybe. RAID 5 No way in hell is this a good idea.
I don't know, intentionally breaking an array seems like a bad idea to me regardless of RAID level.
-
@Jason said:
@JaredBusch said:
@hobbit666 said:
I don't see a problem. the logic is fine 10K is faster spinning than 7.2K. cut them some slack!
WTF kind of logic makes you think intentionally breaking and rebuilding a RAID5 array 4 times is a good thing?
If it was a RAID 10.. Maybe. RAID 5 No way in hell is this a good idea.
Even RAID10, to me, that'd be a big maybe.
-
-
@dafyre said:
@Jason said:
@JaredBusch said:
@hobbit666 said:
I don't see a problem. the logic is fine 10K is faster spinning than 7.2K. cut them some slack!
WTF kind of logic makes you think intentionally breaking and rebuilding a RAID5 array 4 times is a good thing?
If it was a RAID 10.. Maybe. RAID 5 No way in hell is this a good idea.
Even RAID10, to me, that'd be a big maybe.
Yeah I wouldn't do it but chances of failure would be pretty slim compared to RAID 5 especially.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@DustinB3403 said:
And restored from backup to it.
That is certainly the right way to do it.
It was the only way, this same MSP wanted to initally copy from the existing unit. I told my boss, just restore from backup, and we can run xcopies to pull anything else over that isn't a part of the backup.
-
Just as a follow up to this, our existing iSCSI device (as it can't act as a NAS) has had 2 of the 4 drives replaced already, and 1 of them was replaced with a Desktop drive......
Seagate 1TB Desktop 7200 disk....
Who the hell...
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Just as a follow up to this, our existing NAS has had 2 of the 4 drives replaced already, and 1 of them was replaced with a Desktop drive......
Seagate 1TB Desktop 7200 disk....
Who the hell...
How did these people get hired originally? Friend of the owner?
-
@JaredBusch said:
WTF kind of logic makes you think intentionally breaking and rebuilding a RAID5 array 4 times is a good thing?
Sorry should of added the [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags and some similes (if they were working lol).
As I side note I have done this
on my ReadyNAS with RAIDX replaced all 4 drives from 1TB to 1.5TB allowing rebuild between and it does work, just bum clenching while it rebuilds lol -
@coliver yeah I have no clue.... I had to update my last reply because this unit can't even act as a NAS.
-
@Jason said:
@dafyre said:
@Jason said:
@JaredBusch said:
@hobbit666 said:
I don't see a problem. the logic is fine 10K is faster spinning than 7.2K. cut them some slack!
WTF kind of logic makes you think intentionally breaking and rebuilding a RAID5 array 4 times is a good thing?
If it was a RAID 10.. Maybe. RAID 5 No way in hell is this a good idea.
Even RAID10, to me, that'd be a big maybe.
Yeah I wouldn't do it but chances of failure would be pretty slim compared to RAID 5 especially.
Yes, like pretty significantly different. Still a bad idea, but a different order of magnitude bad idea.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@coliver yeah I have no clue.... I had to update my last reply because this unit can't even act as a NAS.
That's just called a SAN.
Is it the infamous SC101?
-
It's a Buffalo Terastation something or other model from ~7 years ago.
