@BraswellJay said in Local Storage vs SAN ...:
Our MSP has quoted an EMC SAN device to the tune of $25k so that VMs could be migrated between hosts with storage being on the SAN
And hopefully your fired them on the spot. Never let them in the door again.
@BraswellJay said in Local Storage vs SAN ...:
so that VMs could be migrated between hosts with storage being on the SAN.
Okay but who cares? That's not where your risk is. The risk is 99% in the SAN. Where do you migrate when the SAN fails?
@Pete-S said in Local Storage vs SAN ...:
@scottalanmiller said in Local Storage vs SAN ...:
@PhlipElder said in Local Storage vs SAN ...:
StarWind and VMware adopted the vSAN designation for their Hyper-Converged Infrastructure solution sets IIRC. Both did.
Both do vSAN. So it makes sense as they run SAN appliances on VMs.
VMware vSAN runs directly on the hypervisor as far as I know. I haven't installed it myself even if I specced it for customers.
They CLAIM that to be true, but they, like MS, often speak in licensing terms rather than how things are physically implemented.
What's funny is that if that is true, it would obviously make it not a vSAN at all. Which is totally plausible as it is a latecomer to the market and like everything with "virtual" or "cloud" slapped on it, they are just playing on the marketing name that people have heard. vSAN is the product name, not its description.
VMware vSAN uses a proprietary SAN protocol to distant nodes (and I assume the local one for transparency) making it... a traditional physical SAN. Just a converged one, rather than a remote one.
None of that is bad. It's all just funny that they claim to explicitly not be the product description whose name they used.
@Pete-S said in XO-Lite beta:
And also away from self-hosting and towards services that someone else will be responsible for.
This I don't feel is true. And when it is, that's still IT managing it, just under a different organizational structure. So all of the needs, whatever they are, remain the same just... elsewhere.
Today a large corporate "IT department" that uses DattoRMM (OMG, shoot me now) ask me if we needed these "apps"...
sc.exe and wmic.exe because DattoRMM was flagging them.
Um, that's WINDOWS. What kind of IT department that manages thousands of Windows computers opens a ticket to their upstream MSP to ask what sc and wmic are? Like, ever heard of Google? Or Windows? Seriously?
Today a customer can't bring from this one workstation.
Funny, everything else can print fine.
Oh wait, Windows 7 on Intel Core 14 years old, 32bit.
Um yeah, we don't have 32bit drivers on the network. WTF people?
Getting a VM to start automatically is a common task and would be far easier to do from the command line shell than to take the time to log into the web GUI, hunt around, etc. So much faster. You just need the command...
qm set VMID_Here --onboot 1
Example usage, if the VM that we want to start is "101"...
# qm set 101 --onboot 1
update VM 101: -onboot 1
If you don't know how to quickly find the VMID of your VM, us...
qm list
@IRJ said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
What kind of marketing department is this? A movie firm? It seems insane to have video files average 10-20gb. Even high budget commercials are probably only that size.. Is this a bunch of templates or something?
Check your Olympus EM-1 MK2 for video, it'll produce that amount fast (but breaks up the files, but just imagine that it kept them as a single file like newer cameras do.)
If you are shooting with a Fuji XH2 or similar, you'll produce 20GB files every few minutes.
I'm just on a GoPro 11 and all my files are 10GB because that's its file limit. If the GoPro kept the files together, I'd routinely have 20GB - 40GB files. And that's low bit rate compared to serious cameras. Imagine if you shot on Panasonic GH6 or better, especially if you go to 6K or 8K! And I'm using H.265 which is tiny. If you shot on ProRes, which is what most do, the file sizes will explode quickly. 100GB or more would be nothing.
@BraswellJay I must be confused. Don't you just edit the file itself, it should be a text file containing the link.
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
This looks like another option, although, it does just look like a NAS to me, just through a specific 'media' vendor.
That's a scam. I use those guys about once a week as an example of "market vertical scams." I've had customers get seriously screwed over by them.
Never buy "industry" IT equipment, it's always a scam. IT is IT, anything industry specific is another way of saying "not good enough to pass IT muster, so we try to bypass IT by claiming it's specifically made for an industry."
They literally make the worst storage you could possibly imagine.
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
1 - 10 Gbps would be more than fine. That is what I proposed. But, the CIO is asking that the storage is Cloud only. Leading to this issue where the editing workstations are in office and the storage is remote.
I would connect the CIO with the users and ask if waiting hours or days to work on a file is good enough. Let the CIO take that up with users.
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
I archive my video in the cloud, but I would not want to work from it without a local cache.
Right, I can't imagine how that could work. No matter how fast the pipe is, the latency would be too high. I don't even want to work via a SAN in the same office. I don't even want to work on a normal SSD. I use 4x NVMe for editing when possible, you really feel the difference and I'm only on 5.3K files in H.265, not 8K HDR on ProRes!!
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@scottalanmiller said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
This looks like another option, although, it does just look like a NAS to me, just through a specific 'media' vendor.
That's a scam. I use those guys about once a week as an example of "market vertical scams." I've had customers get seriously screwed over by them.
Never buy "industry" IT equipment, it's always a scam. IT is IT, anything industry specific is another way of saying "not good enough to pass IT muster, so we try to bypass IT by claiming it's specifically made for an industry."
They literally make the worst storage you could possibly imagine.
Could you tell me more about this? I am not sure I fully understand but would like to. Is the thought that because its a "NAS for Editors" and not just a "NAS" that its not good, otherwise it would be a NAS for everybody regardless of need?
That's how you know it isn't good... it's being marketed that way because if IT looked at it, they'd know it was bad. But if they say "for editors", that's a trick to get the editors to say "IT doesn't know, because this is special for editors." But nothing, anywhere, in the world is special like that, IT factors are always the same. Anything trying to scam someone to get past IT oversight is because it couldn't compete if IT evaluated it.
The issues we found with them in the past:
Or reverse it... there is nothing, whatsoever, good about their products. Other than giving it a marketing name to trick people into thinking it is designed for editing, what does it have going for it? It doesn't have the engineering, support, market knowledge, standardization, honesty, intent, or price of appropriate equipment. What would make someone consider it in the first place? From what we found before... nothing. We were never able to identify a single factor that would make it viable, let alone put it on a list for consideration.
That's the entire trick. Just take any generic PC with several hard drives, slap "designed for editing" on the box and voila, people will short list it and never evaluate it against industry standards. A better option would be, for example, Synology, QNAP, ReadyNAS and other generic SAN units. And that's not saying that they are good options, only that they are similar, but vastly better options. Or just build a SAM-SD. Essentially it's a SAM-SD built by people without knowledge of computing basics.
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@scottalanmiller said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Obsolesce said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
@Jimmy9008 said in Marketing - Video Editing Storage:
Originally, I was looking at proposing a 20 - 30 TB NAS populated with SSDs in the local office, with 10 Gbps NIC. This would provide high speed local access over the LAN to 6 marketing users.
If their PCs accessing a NAS at 1-10Gbps isn't good enough because their primary concern is speed, why would they push for way slower cloud storage, assuming no on-prem cache?
1 - 10 Gbps would be more than fine. That is what I proposed. But, the CIO is asking that the storage is Cloud only. Leading to this issue where the editing workstations are in office and the storage is remote.
I would connect the CIO with the users and ask if waiting hours or days to work on a file is good enough. Let the CIO take that up with users.
The CIO is pretty much of the opinion that the user should plan better and download files they need for editing whilst working on something else.
That's fine, make them have that discussion together.
Basically you have users saying "We need X." And the CIO is saying "No, you don't." Both are reasonable, so they need to hash it out.
BUT, let's say that they do what the CIO says... now... where do they store those files and share them? Oh wait, now they need the solution that they asked for in the first place again, right? So the CIO is actually proposing an additional solution, and ignoring the request. Cloud storage of the archives seems like it was always the obvious answer. And it in no way addresses the local cache.
That he is saying that they should "plan ahead and have a local cache" doesn't disagree with what they have requested. That's exactly what they are asking him to provide.
@BraswellJay said in Can the target of a One Drive link be changed ?:
@scottalanmiller said in Can the target of a One Drive link be changed ?:
@BraswellJay I must be confused. Don't you just edit the file itself, it should be a text file containing the link.
That's what I want to be able to edit. Unless I'm missing something you can't edit the url link file directly in the onedrive portal. If you try to edit from the portal you're taken to editing the target of the link and not the link itself.
I can download the link file and edit it and reupload. I just thought there would be a way to accomplish that directly from the portal without having to download, edit, and reupload, but maybe not.
Oh, no, you definitely have to download it and edit it. OneDrive doesn't give you a generic desktop to edit files from. It's just a storage solution itself. I don't know any platform like that that has built in editors to modify the files that are in the storage except for NextCloud. And it's always super limited because there are challenges to that.
Final Cut Pro in the latest 10.4 release added functionality for NFS and SMB shares, as well as clustered Xsan SAN. However, a key note for that, is that Windows SMB and Windows NFS are not supported. Windows file servers lack key functionalities for SMB and NFS that MacOS and Linux with Samba provide that are required for use.
This is the netdata load report from the underlying system...
@srsmith Sorry, I never saw this thread. In this case, the first thing that I'd do is consider ripping everything out and going with something better suited (we presume) that you can manage yourself. Cisco is a red flag product, generally sold by VARs pretending to be MSPs to lock you into high cost support needs, licensing contracts, and to sell scams like SD-WAN (generally all they are selling is a VPN that they brand as something else). Things you can generally do BETTER for next to nothing yourself, with less effort. If you DO need someone to do it for you, an ITSP will normally handle all of this for peanuts and provide the expertise your team needs to be able to ask networking and security questions, without being sales people pushing bad products to make you need more support.
Rip and replace is almost always the answer in this kind of scenario. In the end you don't want to end up with Cisco gear or an SD-WAN or some remotely managed network that can extort you. If you need management of your networking, have them manage YOUR networking. Don't make a vendor own part of your company network, that's a terrible idea.
@pmoncho said in Beelink PC issues:
@scottalanmiller said in Beelink PC issues:
@JaredBusch said in Beelink PC issues:
@stacksofplates said in Beelink PC issues:
I've bought a couple of the micro form factor Optiplex computers (9020) and have been happy with them. You couldn't have saved too much by buying something like this I can't imagine? I think I paid $250 for the last one and it came with 8GB RAM, an i7, and a 250GB SSD.
This? Yeah, it does not compare, except price.
Wow, that can't be worth $40 new, but $240 used? What the heck?
It should be worth $40 and my guess for the higher price is economics. It was built well and keep on chugging along. It seems they are continually in demand for a basic pc that needs just a web browser or to act as a kiosk.
Yes, but you can get brand new with much more performance for that price. Why get something that is a decade old, AND used when new and new is possible? Much less flexible. And can that unit even run current Windows?
