Aetherstore, looks amazing, what about...
-
@MattSpeller said:
Maybe I've just not had my coffee, or something, but this whole concept gives me the creeps.
No different than most modern storage. This is exactly how Gluster or CEPH or Exablox work.
-
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys. -
@scottalanmiller said:
Keep in mind that nothing makes you use this on a desktop rather than a server.
I can't imagine it running smooth as butter over wifi without putting in some serious attention to detail.
This whole thing is super dependant upon very well setup fundamentals - working so much in SMB I just don't see it. I think this is more attractive in a larger business as a backup scenario or something like that.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.You should have NOTHING happening on your network. Actually, at those speeds I'd question even having users there
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.IM NOT ALONE!
-
@MattSpeller said:
I can't imagine it running smooth as butter over wifi without putting in some serious attention to detail.
Why would you have wifi to desktops, outside of some really extreme cases?
-
@scottalanmiller Ah I wasn't clear - I can't imagine it running well on a fleet of laptops over wifi. Not without some serious I/O speed penalty.
-
@MattSpeller said:
This whole thing is super dependant upon very well setup fundamentals - working so much in SMB I just don't see it. I think this is more attractive in a larger business as a backup scenario or something like that.
Nearly all SMBs have Windows desktops and GigE networking. Wifi to desktops, no desktops, Linux desktops, FastEthernet... while all exist from time to time are all super rare. A normal SMB can implement this easily and reliably. No technology works for everyone. But this one definitely is targetted at a normal, traditional SMB.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller Ah I wasn't clear - I can't imagine it running well on a fleet of laptops over wifi. Not without some serious I/O speed penalty.
You would never use laptops for permanent storage. This isn't meant to use ephemeral devices, just not necessarily servers.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
You would never use laptops for permanent storage. This isn't meant to use ephemeral devices, just not necessarily servers.
Until today I couldn't imagine using desktops for that either
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.You should have NOTHING happening on your network. Actually, at those speeds I'd question even having users there
Non-Profit IT, To replace the kit would be £600-900 for managed switches plus fibre modules.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
Non-Profit IT, To replace the kit would be £600-900 for managed switches plus fibre modules.
Why would you need managed switches? In what case are ancient FastEthernet switches acceptable to keep using but if moving to GigE would require both managed switches and fibre? I must be missing something big. How big is the environment? Do you have a lot of VLANs or something? What is the fibre for?
-
@MattSpeller said:
Until today I couldn't imagine using desktops for that either
This has been one of those things that people have proposed for decades. All that wasted, stable, always-on storage going to waste.
-
@Breffni-Potter said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Breffni-Potter said:
Not all of us are in GigE
Remember us 10/100 guys.You should have NOTHING happening on your network. Actually, at those speeds I'd question even having users there
Non-Profit IT, To replace the kit would be £600-900 for managed switches plus fibre modules.
Huh? a lot of people limit down too 100mb for desktops anyway with either the IP Phones or by the switch because they have only Cat5 cables run in the wall. If you need to managed entry level switches the Cisco SG200/300 line is cheaper for that matter. And why are you going to fiber if you don't have it now? I only use Fiber from Core Switches to Access switches and from Router to WAN Fiber (and Site-Site Fiber). What other reason do you need it?
That being said I don't have much use for it. But I could see people using it where they don't have good centralize storage, or are always needing some extra utility storage or temporary project storage.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Huh? a lot of people limit down too 100mb for desktops anyway with either the IP Phones or by the switch because they have only Cat5 cables run in the wall.
A lot of times (most that I've seen) CAT5 will carry GigE reliably. Not always, but most of the time from what experiences I've had with it. Don't plan on that working, but often it works.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
If you need to managed entry level switches the Cisco SG200/300 line is cheaper for that matter.
Aka Linksys.
-
It would be a rare situation where I would want to carefully manage FastEthernet when I could have unmanaged GigE. I can think of some scenarios, but few and far between. And you could do GigE here and there. Throw in a $30 switch just for the AetherStore cluster and there is no concern around the bandwidth since you are using all "extra" bandwidth that doesn't exist outside of the main LAN.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
If you need to managed entry level switches the Cisco SG200/300 line is cheaper for that matter.
Aka Linksys.
Ah, those aren't Linksys nor re-branded. They are built after the separation and redone. They are nothing like linksys. They are a lot better than anything Netgear has ever put out.
-
@scottalanmiller
The Fibre is for links between buildings, so the speed is consistent between all devices, not keen on trading down the Fibre bandwidth for cat-5 over distance.Vlans are for guest wifi, that's the only reason why we need managed.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Ah, those aren't Linksys nor re-branded. They are built after the separation and redone. They are nothing like linksys. They are a lot better than anything Netgear has ever put out.
We had to yank a lot of them and replace with Netgear due to quality issues. They are one of the lines that make me mistrust Cisco and what Cisco is willing to put their name on. We didn't recommend them, of course, but everyone jumped on them being Linksys division gear when we yanked them. That's what we heard from the SW crowd - we were berated for it being common knowledge and that it was ridiculous that we thought of them as Ciscos. Just repeating what we were told.
