@travisdh1 said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@Obsolesce said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

Also, today is yet another day of slowly and expensively helping a company recover both their ProxMox and TrueNAS deployments that were done on ZFS and all was lost and no vendor had any means of recovering anything.

Did they back up their PRoxMox to their TruNAS and they both went under?

Or the ghost story of IT deployments.

ProxMox with main storage on TruNAS... ooooooOOOOOOo scary!

NO! Worse. TrueNAS on top of ProxMox. So ZFS on top of ZFS!!

All the ZFS cultists are so ready to say why you can't do ZFS on top of hardware RAID to try to discredit hardware RAID (when in reality, it is ZFS that is unstable) that they ignore that doing it on top of ANY other system would have the exact same results. So they miss that ZFS on top of ZFS is far, far worse than ZFS on top of something stable.

So the level of disaster is incredible. All teh complexity, all the fragility of ZFS (TWICE) and no ZFS advantages because it is stripped away by the encapsulation of the ZFS by the other ZFS system.

macOS Sonoma 14 has released this morning. Mac users can update now. I'm just about to kick off the update myself.

https://www.apple.com/macos/sonoma/

No major features that I would call important in any way. but lots of little things.

Also, today is yet another day of slowly and expensively helping a company recover both their ProxMox and TrueNAS deployments that were done on ZFS and all was lost and no vendor had any means of recovering anything.

@GUIn00b said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

@scottalanmiller said in What Are You Doing Right Now:

hating ZFS more and more each day, lol

I've quickly discovered there is a fervent populus of ZFS defenders and apologists. It reminds me of the RAID-5 knife fights ....err I mean discussions

You sure do know how to pick a nemesis, SAM

More they picked one with me. I've been a storage and filesystem expert since before ZFS released and the ZFS team worked on the original SAM-SD design with me. The Cult of ZFS people literally picked a fight with me and the ZFS team ten years after this stuff was old hat, lol.

@travisdh1 said in ProxMox Storage Configuration Question (idk how lol):

They've completely bought into the cult of ZFS and the Windows world of "software RAID is bad".

It's weird because they push software RAID, just not good software RAID that's baked in. Only software RAID from a system that isn't native nor stable on Linux. Ugh.

@GUIn00b said in ProxMox Storage Configuration Question (idk how lol):

I thought I was going to mdadm a RAID-10. Nope! AAaaaand Proxmox seems to have "ZOMG USE ZFS" all over their documentation, and I'm not interested in that if there are other options

The only way I'd use it is either manually creating a RAID array with MD and not telling ProxMox, lol. But that's kludgy. Or do things the ProxMox way and use a hardware RAID controller.

ProxMox isn't stable with ZFS (ZFS is not stable on Linux and we know exactly why) and ProxMox ignores this and leaves the user at risk. But almost no one deploys Proxmox that way so it is rarely an issue.

But like VMware, officially there is no software RAID option that is production capable. Sucks because MD would do a great job here.

@GUIn00b said in Practical RAID Decision Making:

I guess it would have to be a very specific concern to opt for the parity overhead in favor of the "added protection" over a statistically very rare potential failure scenario of 4-drive RAID-10.

It's a specific failure scenario that even when it happens, there's no way to know if the same scenario would have been protected under RAID 6 because most scenarios where RAID 10 would fail, RAID 6 would also fail during its recovery mode (nearly 100%.) But the chances that it would face that recovery scenario are higher.

The complexity comes from choosing single unpredictable failure scenarios. After a failure has occurred, if we had the ability to pick how to have protected against it in the past, yes, RAID 6 would be chosen sometimes. There's a known example to explain why you can't use this in real life. It's the seatbelt problem.

Seatbelts save lives. On average, by far, wearing a seatbelt protects you. But there are special cases where the seatbelt can be what causes you to die. Yet statically, you never skip wearing a seatbelt because it is a one in a million chance that the seatbelt will cause a death rather than preventing one. And at the time that you choose to wear or not to sear wear your seatbelt you have no idea which type of accident you will have.

So we know that wearing the seatbelt is the safer bet. Seatbelts are like RAID 10. You can't know how things will go wrong, and in this scenario, RAID 10 protects you much more often than RAID 6 does.

@GUIn00b said in Practical RAID Decision Making:

Though both RAID levels can sustain 2 drive failures, the caveat with RAID-10 is as long as it's not the same member from each mirrored set. With RAID-6, ANY 2 drives could fail and still be operational and recoverable. I guess it would have to be a very specific concern to opt for the parity overhead in favor of the "added protection" over a statistically very rare potential failure scenario of 4-drive RAID-10.

Even then, statistically RAID 6 is much more dangerous. RAID 10 has a reliability rating so high that it never matters, RAID 6 does not. RAID 6 has a rebuild time hundreds of times longer than RAID 10; and it has 300% higher URE risks during a rebuild (that is chance of hitting one in a four drive scenario).

Remember the rule of thumb in determining RAID risk: always ignore the false security of "how many drives can you lose." That's not what matters. That's one of many factors, and almost never a significant one, in determining actual risk. URE risks are orders of magnitude more significant and factors like rebuild intensity and rebuild time make "chances to lose another disk" generally more significant than "how many disks can you stand to lose."

At four drives, I know of no scenario where RAID 6 is faster or more reliable than RAID 10. It's always worse. At 5+ drives it starts to have capacity advantages that once in a while make it a good choice. But the rule is at four drives, RAID 6 is a "never" because it's slower and riskier without any offsetting benefits.

@Obsolesce said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:

@PhlipElder said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:

If the product says it can run on Windows 10 or 11 and falls under the 20 connection limit then go for it but with one caveat: Make sure the hardware has ECC memory to avoid a memory flipped bit error that can wreak havoc and at least a RAID 1 array between two SATA SSDs.

No, the 20 connection limit ONLY applies to the built-in Windows file and print services. File sharing and printing (leaving out IIS and the others as they don't apply).

That is exactly NOT AVImark Veterinary Software.

What you said to do is undeniable theft.

More importantly, a third party has no authority to override your agreement with Microsoft.

@PhlipElder said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:

If the product says it can run on Windows 10 or 11 and falls under the 20 connection limit then go for it

So if a third party says you can steal from a bank, go for it? Because Avimark has zero, literally zero, say in what you can legally do in your contract with Microsoft.

With that logic, why ask Avimark at all, why not ask your aunt or some kid on the street? Why pay for any license for anything, ever? Just ask someone who isn't involved and ask them if it is okay to steal from someone else and if you don't like the answer, ask random people until you get the answer you want.

Why bother asking anyone? Just treat yourself as the third party and ask yourself. Voila.

@Mario-Jakovina said in Can you run a Windows desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinary Software?:

Volkswagen and Audi cars also have very much in common under the hood, but they are not same products.

If the difference between the two products is in the license and only in the license and it is the license that unlocks the features... they are the same product. VW and Audi by law must be different products, made in different places. They can share a lot, but are different vehicles. Windows 11 and 2022 are literally the same product and the difference is the license.

@CCWTech said in Can you run a desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinaty Software?:

And, again, this is very commonly discussed among experts. Windows 10/11 have a 20 device limit for connections. Clearly, MS had multiple PCs accessing it in mind.

This is like saying that a bank has 10 teller stations so clearly unlimited people are allowed to steal from the vault.

Allowing one type of access in a limited fashion in no way implies something unrelated is also allowed. What kind of logic do they teach at university these days? An eight year old should have no issue with this. It's SO basic.

@Obsolesce said in Can you run a desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinaty Software?:

@CCWTech seems super clear to me, and always has been:

The most important bit is "only the following features" of which, AviMark, is not one of them. Personal or internal doesn't matter at that point, as it isn't a feature allowed.

The number of devices allowed to use AviMark remotely from it is exactly: zero.

Why is it piracy?

Windows Server 2022 and CALs are not a separate product or code base from Windows 11. Windows 11 is a limited use case of Windows 2022 under which you commit to not using the Server 2022 features. The instant you don't do that, you are using a stolen copy of Windows Server and you haven't just started using the server without a license (in production), but also without CALs. So the amount of piracy goes from what seems like a small "misuse of a product under a TOS" to intentional "federal piracy".

One would hope that someone in the veterinary field, having been required to get college educated, would not need a middle school education in following the rules. This isn't hard stuff, at all. Any receptionist could figure this out if they wanted to, that a doctor can't really makes me worried for the poor animals that they don't understand.

Basic ethics, basic English. Nothing technical here. It's a super simple contract that everyone, everywhere is aware of. Lots of people willing to pirate software, but that doesn't mean that they don't understand it.

@CCWTech said in Can you run a desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinaty Software?:

Finally, the official Hardware Requirements for Avimark specifically mention using a Windows 10 PC (running Desktop Windows, not Server) as being acceptable for a smaller office. So are you suggesting that Avimark's own Hardware Requirements recommend an illegal act?

This is actually something we talk about in IT all the time... how vendors and software companies have no knowledge of, experience with, or responsibility to oversee your licensing and how it is totally the job of any adult to understand when you are talking to a professional or when you are talking to a random person.

Asking a software vendor what your contract with Microsoft says? Why would they know? That's like asking Ford the speed limit on a highway. The cops know the speed limit, Ford knows how to make the car go that fast. Ford isn't responsible for knowing or enforcing some town's speed limit.

Avimark answered honestly... IF you had a license that allowed you to use Windows 11 that way, it will work. They are responsible for the software aspect of that question, their answer has nothing to do with the IT side of things. And outside of the US, there are many countries (Bolivia, for example) where the TOS don't apply and it absolutely makes sense. So it's not a blanket "illegal" question of intentional software piracy.

@CCWTech said in Can you run a desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinaty Software?:

then that would pretty clearly imply that you CAN use it for server purposes under 20 users. It literally has file sharing built in.

Yes, Microsoft TOS is clear that using it as a FILE SERVER is allowed. AviMark is a database, not a file server. So clear violation as it doesn't use the singular allowed method under the TOS.

@CCWTech said in Can you run a desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinaty Software?:

Second, I don't believe that it violates the Windows 10 TOS. And, again, this is very commonly discussed among experts.

LOL, he seems to have a very loose definition of expert.

@CCWTech said in Can you run a desktop OS as a server to run AVImark Veterinaty Software?:

First, even if it was a Terms of Service violation, that would not make it illegal. TOSs are considered civil matters. It is not "illegal" to violate one. So, no, it isn't illegal.

Pirating software is theft. Theft is illegal. In an office like that, typically licensing would be above $10K so it isn't just illegal, it would constitute grand theft. Piracy is often taken as a federal matter, as well.

@Obsolesce said in Not much luck with Linux Distro's:

@scottalanmiller said in Not much luck with Linux Distro's:

The hardware is fantastic to the point that I put up with it and am thrilled with how well it works.

Yes definitely this.

At least it has improved. Twenty years ago I could not have made it work at all.

@AdamF said in COLO Switching & Power:

@scottalanmiller said in COLO Switching & Power:

How many switches do you anticipate needing in the colo?

I'm just looking 2 replace 2 at this point.

LOL, so it IS a small office switch anyway. You should be thinking of it the same way we think of a 15 person veterinary office at that size.