Just heard MSP say...
-
@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.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
It's a Buffalo Terastation something or other model from ~7 years ago.
OH right, that is the one that prompted the other thread about finding the low end pure SAN devices that are out there on the market. Other than the SC101 and Drobo, this was the first of these that we had come across.
-
If you were going to exchange disks for completely different drives (model/speed/etc), they should have recommended moving the data off, destroying the volume, and completely rebuilding it.
-
@BBigford said:
If you were going to exchange disks for completely different drives (model/speed/etc), they should have recommended moving the data off, destroying the volume, and completely rebuilding it.
Even for the same drives... although why would you swap out good identical drives.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
If you were going to exchange disks for completely different drives (model/speed/etc), they should have recommended moving the data off, destroying the volume, and completely rebuilding it.
Even for the same drives... although why would you swap out good identical drives.
I wouldn't swap out good identical drives... But if the OP really wanted faster mechanical drives, or SSDs for that matter. I don't see 7200 rpm drives vs. 10k rpm drives being an enormous leap. Now 7200 rpm vs SSD is a different story in performance (dependent on the SSDs used of course), but also a bit more expensive per GB. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be breaking a RAID intentionally without moving all the data off and just rebuilding. I don't see any other reason with how unstable you are making it.
-
Time for new MSP?
-
@scottalanmiller The only time I've traded out drives intentionally when things hadn't failed was a rock bottom budget, we had to expand the storage, and couldn't afford a new appliance right then and there. Traded out one drive at a time for larger drives (backups were taken), and eventually scaled up to about double the size. Bought a different appliance the following year and reused the old appliance as a non-critical.
-
