@dafyre said:

@scottalanmiller said:

That's why comparing 500GB to 500GB for a "Watt per GB" comparison.

I assume we're talking average... Some HDDs are set to time out and switch to low power mode and stuff... and some folks (like me) go in and turn that off). SSDs have the advantages of not having to spin up or down. They simply draw less power.

Spinning down a Winchester drive dramatically increases its chance of death. So would increase costs in other places. Not sure if that would save money over the drives lifespan or not since it easily cuts 75% of the lifespan off.

@BRRABill said:

It seems as though you can install another DC, then replicate, then demote the EVAL one.

But I think I'll just go with not doing that. 🙂

Yes, it wouldn't be a functional AD if you could not do that. You risk schema issues, though.

@Jason said:

@scottalanmiller said:

Depends. I've never seen an enterprise shop with enterprise system admins that were not more expensive than the storage guys. Close, but systems is the top payer. I've known many $200K and higher systems people. No storage people at $200K. But lots over $150K.

Cost more but can do more. I'm not saying what my pay is, but my bonus is more than my whole salary at my previous employer.

Yup, system admins generally can do "nearly anything." Whereas storage admins generally can do only one thing. And if you change storage products you generally have to replace your storage team too.

@coliver said:

Contact NTG I'm pretty sure they can do it without pushing any products. Although there is a fee it is probably worth it.

Yes, and.... yes.

Keep me updated, if I have to kick our packagers, let me know!

@Dashrender said:

I'm not sure about that if that was the case, then why is Scott so dead set against Hot Spares? Unless he's only against hot spares for spinning rust RAID 5.

Hot Spares with R5 are insane as it could be a live part of the array making it a RAID 6. RAID 1, same thing, just make it part of the array. Both cases are insane to have hot spares.

With RAID 6 you can have them in situations where the hot spare does not push you unnecessarily close to RAID 10 and RAID 5.3 (aka RAID 7) is not available. But that's relatively uncommon.

In RAID 10 you can have them but they only make sense in very large arrays or cases where you just can't get to the array to swap the failed drives.

In some cases it is an architectural problem, in others it is that the cost is just not justified.

Seems like a good move. WD has been in the need of a way to address flash storage for a while.

@jospoortvliet said:

There's an update of the Documents app, I haven't checked if it works with 8.2 but you'd think that that is the main reason for the update 😉

Meanwhile, Here is the next batch of #ownCloudConf videos starting with Sabre/DAV developer Evert Pot about promises & generators in PHP and followed by 8 other talks covering Docker, Jolla, Agile, Smashbox and more.

Enjoy and share.!

After finally getting some downtime at work I was able to install the Documents addon and test it out. I'm pretty sure this feature alone is going to be a major selling point for deploying OwnCloud 😄

While testing the online editing + collaboration, everything just made sense and worked without any hoops to jump through, which is definitely more than I can say for our current solution!

@StuartJordan said in Backup File Server to DAS:

Wow what a thread, took me a while to read through it 🙂

We don't fool around around here!

So many things use snapshots under the hood, space can grow and shrink pretty rapidly in confusing ways.

How did this project go?

Did you end up getting this to work?

I still have it around if you want to test.

@alvama said:

Scott, thank you for your topic. I am planning new installation and comparing between RAID 10 and RAID 5 on ssd drives. What do you think about stripe size and TBW for two types of raid? Do you know what size of blocks will be written on disks if service (sql for example) writes 8Kb on volume. For raid10 I think it will be two 8K blocks on mirror disks. But for RAID 5 it will be two blocks with size=stripe size and may be 32 or 64K. And in raid5 configuration TBW limit will be reached faster.

I'm not Scott but in your context RAID5 seems to be preferred. Because 1) Flash and not spinning disk used so typical parity RAID issues associated with high-capacity spinners are gone (see URL below) 2) Database logs are sequential writes of a big sizes so should "touch" maximum amount of spinners possible and because of sequential nature read-modify-write is not going to happen and 3) RAID5 gives you write performance of (N-1) and RAID10 does (N/2) (where N = amount of spinners).

https://slog.starwindsoftware.com/raid-5-was-great-until-high-capacity-hdds-came-into-play-but-ssds-restored-its-former-glory/

Good luck 🙂

@DustinB3403 said:

So you could use something like WinSCP to connect to Amazon S3 service of yours assuming its configured as NFS / SMB Share and copy down or upload your file(s).

No, there are a couple things wrong here.

NFS / SMB are network file systems, not block storage. So this goes against what you posted in the line about about using whatever filesystem you want which means block storage. Neither block storage nor network file storage is an option on any of these products. Nor would you want it as even NFS is horribly weak over a WAN link and SMB is far worse.

WinSCP is a tool for SFTP, FTPS, SCP and FTP usage, not SMB or NFS. So that isn't the right tool in any circumstance here.

Those little Atom processors that they tend to use (I miss the Sparc32 days, it was just more interesting) use very little electrical power and produce very little heat and tend to last for forever. Pretty much unbeatable.

We will be waiting quite some time to see how 6.0 shakes out before we touch any of ours

@scottalanmiller Planning to start it this week.

I'm still finding parts to use. Trying to be as cost conscious as possible as this is only my home lab. (and the significant other gets testy when I want to "buy toys")