RAID Controllers - Stupidly Expensive for what they are
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
Save yourself a ton of money and build a SAM-SD - it could all be Software RAID.
@scottalanmiller did you get get the SAM-SD to run from a SD card?
I went looking for the SAM-SD wiki that John had setup to suggest on this thread. Sadly it doesn't seem to exist anymore.
It was never filled with enough info to be useful. We need to get an official one up and running sometime soon. Just need a web designer, argh.
Some kind of Wiki or other website for things like that would be awesome to see attached to ML. Similar (maybe exactly) like what SW has.
-
That's a potential idea although user management integration would be difficult. What kind of materials are you thinking should exist in a general purpose ML wiki?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller did you get get the SAM-SD to run from a SD card?
That would depend heavily on the kind of SAM-SD that you want. a FreeBSD system would be relatively easy. A Linux one moderate. A Windows one ill-advised.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
Save yourself a ton of money and build a SAM-SD - it could all be Software RAID.
@scottalanmiller did you get get the SAM-SD to run from a SD card?
I went looking for the SAM-SD wiki that John had setup to suggest on this thread. Sadly it doesn't seem to exist anymore.
It was never filled with enough info to be useful. We need to get an official one up and running sometime soon. Just need a web designer, argh.
I do a lot with Drupal. I might be able to build something.
-
@mlnews said:
That's a potential idea although user management integration would be difficult. What kind of materials are you thinking should exist in a general purpose ML wiki?
A general How-To that anyone who finds something interesting that they want to make sure they know where they can find it again in the future.
As for the SAM-SD - a Linux or FreeBSD, not sure why anyone would want a Windows one.
-
@Dashrender said:
not sure why anyone would want a Windows one.
SMB3, for example? DFS? ReFS? Management as part of the existing Windows infrastructure.
If you wonder why anyone would want Windows here, do you feel that Windows doesn't make sense ever or just for file servers?
-
@Dashrender said:
A general How-To that anyone who finds something interesting that they want to make sure they know where they can find it again in the future.
Other than formatting difficulties, any reason that the forum does not work for that as it is? What would having another platform add to that?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
not sure why anyone would want a Windows one.
SMB3, for example? DFS? ReFS? Management as part of the existing Windows infrastructure.
If you wonder why anyone would want Windows here, do you feel that Windows doesn't make sense ever or just for file servers?
Just for remote storage - Is SMB3 really getting any traction?
-
@Dashrender said:
Just for remote storage - Is SMB3 really getting any traction?
It's bit in the HyperV space for backing HyperV. It's got some benefits for normal users. I think that basically everyone on Windows file servers is on it now (that are on current Windows Servers.)
-
Search is horrible here, perhaps tagging will help with sorting things.
-
@Dashrender said:
Search is horrible here, perhaps tagging will help with sorting things.
Yes, you are very bad about tagging your posts. I have to edit every one to add tags after you post!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Search is horrible here, perhaps tagging will help with sorting things.
Yes, you are very bad about tagging your posts. I have to edit every one to add tags after you post!
Am I alone in this?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Search is horrible here, perhaps tagging will help with sorting things.
Yes, you are very bad about tagging your posts. I have to edit every one to add tags after you post!
Am I alone in this?
Mostly.
-
-
Edit: Let's try this again...
I set up a Windows Server 2012 File Server Role as a Failover Cluster (it uses SMB 3 for transparen't failover). The transparent failover worked beautifully. We had a server keel over and release the magic smok and our end users barely noticed the blip as everything failed over to the other server in less than 5 seconds.One other benefit of a modern (Windows) file server is that Deduplication is relatively easy to set up, and on that same File Server, we were getting ~30% deduplication)
NB: This was the original post... skip it if you want.
I set up a Windows Server 2012 File Share Failover Cluster that was backed by a SAN (hush, @scottalanmiller ) and got to experience the SMB3.0 transparent failover a few times...when the file server randomly rebooted a few times. It...was... beautiful (as well as the Deduplication! ~30% savings on a 2TB). -
Uh - maybe I'm confused - I didn't think SMB was a SAN protocol?
-
@Dashrender You missed the part where it was served up from a Windows 2012 File Server... This is what happens when I try to talk about too many technologies in once paragraph, lol... I'll go edit that post for clarity.
-
@dafyre said:
I set up a Windows Server 2012 File Share Failover Cluster that was backed by a SAN (hush, @scottalanmiller ) and got to experience the SMB3.0 transparent failover a few times...when the file server randomly rebooted a few times. It...was... beautiful (as well as the Deduplication! ~30% savings on a 2TB).
What does backed by a SAN mean here?
So you have a Windows Server 2012 box that is sharing via SMB3.0 storage that is on a SAN - OK... the SMB3.0 is providing file services to end users?
-
@Dashrender said:
What does backed by a SAN mean here?
SAN backing is a standard term for what is sitting "behind" the storage that you see. The backing is lower in the stack, heads are higher in the stack. So this would be a one or more Windows file server head with SAN backing.
-
@Dashrender said:
So you have a Windows Server 2012 box that is sharing via SMB3.0 storage that is on a SAN - OK... the SMB3.0 is providing file services to end users?
Correct
