Burned by Eschewing Best Practices
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Odd that they so often mod people for genuinely helping people but no one mods someone that openly admits to being a pointless troll.
I don't hardly go on the site any more. I think most everyone I want to learn something from is on here.
-
And discuss things with.
-
I think he falls under the category of "not worth responding to." I posted once that I respond to people because I value them as humans and as professionals and that's why I take the time to try to vet solutions, figure out what is right, etc. It's when I stop responding that I no longer see them as worth the electrons. He's past that point.
-
@johnhooks said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Odd that they so often mod people for genuinely helping people but no one mods someone that openly admits to being a pointless troll.
I don't hardly go on the site any more. I think most everyone I want to learn something from is on here.
Yeah, it is getting more and more to be that way. As good people come here, people like that become a bigger and bigger percentage elsewhere.
Funny that he wanted to give the three of us a forum... how random. We never post together and the chances that at least I would have seen his posts was almost zero given the odd topics he chose to post about. And odd that it is someone I have no memory of ever seeing in the forums before.
Me thinks he's very, very embarrassed or has a LOT of free time on his hands.
-
Oh I just noticed that he sent me an invite to his trolling thread at the end. ha ha.
-
Hasn't been burned yet, but going to be.
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1323286-jbod-in-freenas
-
Low end SAN and... the firmware upgrade failed.
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1330206-md3200i-failed-firmware-upgrade
-
RAID 5 Spinning Rust - 2 Disk Failure, without a mention of a backup device.
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1330485-raid-5-disk-failure?source=homepage-feed
-
@DustinB3403 said:
RAID 5 Spinning Rust - 2 Disk Failure, without a mention of a backup device.
http://community.spiceworks.com/topic/1330485-raid-5-disk-failure?source=homepage-feed
- You are bashing a more than 10 year old system that was built when RAID5 was the standard in SMB (no matter what @scottalanmiller says about how long it has been a bad idea). You do not rebuild working equipment just because something is better. You have to consider the cost to the business and often letting it run until failure is the better option.
- He clearly stated is was a Buffalo TeraStation. If this was in a business, one can assume it was a backup target and not primary storage.
-
@JaredBusch said:
- He clearly stated is was a Buffalo TeraStation. If this was in a business, one can assume it was a backup target and not primary storage.
I'd argue that that doesn't hold up on SW. TeraStations are more that than some, but the use of consumer and "SMB" class storage like this as primary storage for running apps is discussed continuously. Maybe backup is still more common, but you definitely cannot assume that it is for backups. It is nearly daily that we talk to people that are using storage exactly like this as their primary VM stores.
-
I won't touch a Buffalo Terastation unless somebody gave me one... and even then, I'd only touch it just enough to take pictures of it and sell it on eBay... I have had horrible luck with those -- and that was just as backup targets.
-
@dafyre said:
I won't touch a Buffalo Terastation unless somebody gave me one... and even then, I'd only touch it just enough to take pictures of it and sell it on eBay... I have had horrible luck with those -- and that was just as backup targets.
I have always had good luck with them. I prefer Synology today though.
-
@JaredBusch said:
- You are bashing a more than 10 year old system that was built when RAID5 was the standard in SMB (no matter what @scottalanmiller says about how long it has been a bad idea). You do not rebuild working equipment just because something is better.
If I were bashing it (and I'm well aware of how old the equipment is) I'd be here saying "Look at this fool".
Instead I posted the topic as found on SW, without a response to the SW topic at all. Nor did I bash here. I provided what was setup 10 years ago.
The age of the device by it's self should have been cause for alarm 6 years ago, and been replaced then, in RAID10.
-
@JaredBusch said:
- You are bashing a more than 10 year old system that was built when RAID5 was the standard in SMB (no matter what @scottalanmiller says about how long it has been a bad idea). You do not rebuild working equipment just because something is better. You have to consider the cost to the business and often letting it run until failure is the better option.
Six years, I always state 2009 as the inflection point. Of course it was increasingly dangerous over time, it wasn't a "sudden" change. But 2009 is generally accepted to be the point where it just didn't make sense any longer.
It's also incredibly important to understand that just because something is standard and that lots of people do it does not suggest that it is good or that they should not have known better. In fact, it suggests the real possibility that they didn't do their due diligence and just followed the crowd hoping that things would just work out without them doing their "IT" bits.
We just had another thread talking about this - the most common thing in business, or IT or just anything is to not do it well. So if someone is only coming up to "what most do" doesn't mean that it should be taken as an acceptable level.
I've not read the thread and am not commenting on any specifics. Just that using "it was standard" as a reason to not feel that it was a bad choice isn't a good bar to set. It is our job in IT to understand and make good recommendations. If people just want to do what "everyone else is doing" they can do that without IT people to advise them.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I've not read the thread and am not commenting on any specifics. Just that using "it was standard" as a reason to not feel that it was a bad choice isn't a good bar to set. It is our job in IT to understand and make good recommendations. If people just want to do what "everyone else is doing" they can do that without IT people to advise them.
I am most certainly not saying that it was done well, and likely the point for switching the hardware versus the cost for doing so tipped a while back for something like this in truth. Much more information would need to be know to be certain.
-
@dafyre said:
I won't touch a Buffalo Terastation unless somebody gave me one... and even then, I'd only touch it just enough to take pictures of it and sell it on eBay... I have had horrible luck with those -- and that was just as backup targets.
I've supported a few and have had to deal with Buffalo support which was very good. The devices seem to be "middling", not great but not bad. Support was quite impressive when I had to use them, though.
-
I agree that if stuff is working, often it should be kept. Not forever, things wear out and get riskier, but we often jump to replacing early in IT because it's more fun to have new stuff.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@dafyre said:
I won't touch a Buffalo Terastation unless somebody gave me one... and even then, I'd only touch it just enough to take pictures of it and sell it on eBay... I have had horrible luck with those -- and that was just as backup targets.
I have always had good luck with them. I prefer Synology today though.
Synology and ReadyNAS are really just "exceptionally good" I think. Buffalo is certainly a viable contender.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
@JaredBusch said:
- You are bashing a more than 10 year old system that was built when RAID5 was the standard in SMB (no matter what @scottalanmiller says about how long it has been a bad idea). You do not rebuild working equipment just because something is better.
If I were bashing it (and I'm well aware of how old the equipment is) I'd be here saying "Look at this fool".
Instead I posted the topic as found on SW, without a response to the SW topic at all. Nor did I bash here. I provided what was setup 10 years ago.
The age of the device by it's self should have been cause for alarm 6 years ago, and been replaced then, in RAID10.
This entire thread is nothing but a collection of posts linking to (mostly) SW highlighting mistakes. That is nothing but a thread of bashing.
As for the age of the device. Replacing something that is working just because it is old? Not a chance. As I stated in my reply to Scott, yes, likely it should have been redone as RAID10 by now, but that does not mean replacing the hardware just because.
I am working from a 6 year old desktop right now. Should I replace it?
-
@JaredBusch said:
I am working from a 6 year old desktop right now. Should I replace it?
Not necessarily... Just keep a good backup and spare drive on hand, lol.
