@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.

WE ARE LIVE!!!!! Stream it FREE here:
https://sonicspeculum.bandcamp.com/album/sonic-speculum

Youtube Video

@syko24 said in SAMIT: Why You Can't Share QuickBooks on Google Drive for Mutiuser:

@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Why You Can't Share QuickBooks on Google Drive for Mutiuser:

@syko24 said in SAMIT: Why You Can't Share QuickBooks on Google Drive for Mutiuser:

There is a product out there called QBox that allows you to lock and sync the file with multiple locations. The downside is that remote users can only access the file when the local users have closed out of QuickBooks. Kind of a neat product but again not ideal when you need multiuser access all the time. The best solution in my opinion is an RDS server with the QuickBooks data file stored on the RDS for best performance.

As the QuickBooks desktop products seem to be coming closer and closer to an end, I agree that the online version is likely the best way to go. Part of the problem is that users have been using the desktop version for so long that the online version becomes very foreign to them and most want to return back to the desktop version.

https://www.coraltreetech.com/how-qbox-works

Yeah, that's not multiuser but rather "rapidly changing and coordinated single user". Could be a useful solution for some, though. You can do this with most products. NextCloud for example.

From the use case I've seen that is correct on being a single user product. I did watch the video on the link I posted and it does look like you can still do multiuser as long as the users are all on the same network. The remote user can only access once all the local users are out of the file and it has done it's sync. The file locking is automatic as well which is nice. It basically prevents the outside user from accidently overwriting your changes.

Sure, you can always bypass the sync and do local multiuser, but the humans have to manage that.

@travisdh1 thanks! 🙂

But that is only the eBook. So they sell way more of them.

It's gotta me more, closer to $.70.

@scottalanmiller It makes sense they can't because of the nature of their static Database.

@scottalanmiller It's a bit of a no-brainer though I've not watched the vid.

The Cult of the Lowest Common Denominator will win in most cases. There are some niche players out there not a part of the Cult, but one needs to sift through the chaff to find them.

@Carnival-Boy said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:

From that, you've drawn a huge number of untrue assumptions, such as I'm not really IT,

Where did I draw that conclusion? I asked you if you were and you've not said one way or the other. That's all. Repeating that you work for an ISV, whatever that means to you, in no way whatsoever answers the question. Just because an ISV is in no way an IT organization doesn't mean that they don't hire some IT staff internally. I feel like you are saying it to try to tell us you're not in IT, but it doesn't imply that.

Just like working at McDonald's includes both flipping burgers and being a CIO.

ISVs tend to have incredibly small IT needs, in general. But they certainly need IT. As someone that's owned an ISV for a very long time, we certainly have IT. But we don't offer IT, we offer software. But developers need IT support too. As do the office staff, etc.

@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Stop Using Secure Email:

@JaredBusch said in SAMIT: Stop Using Secure Email:

Also, accepting insecure email is different than allowing your organization to send insecure email.

Very true. Accepting things insecurely is better than sending them.

I accept email in any way that it is sent. But all sent email is required to be TLS or it will not send. I have a couple of people that the boss cannot email because of it, as well as one prior customer that is still running an ancient ass GroupWise 6 email server. They email asking for one off support for their routers sometimes.

@Fredtx said in SAMIT: Should You Still Be Using Disk Partitions:

In a Windows world, it seems it would be better to create a Storage Space, because it gives you the flexibility to extend the storage instead of having to add/mount another virtual drive if you were to run out of space.

Exactly. Same logic applies universally, always best to have that flexibility on your platform. It has no real overhead, but protects against the unknown.

@Carnival-Boy said in People Fear Change More Than They Actually Hate the Change - SAMIT:

Yeah, time is a big problem with dealing with change. I work in the Microsoft SaaS ERP space and Microsoft release a new version every month and they're constantly changing things and sometimes it feels like a full time job just to keep up with it all. I can lose 15 minutes just trying to find something after they've moved the menus around.

Sometimes I just think "slow down, I can't keep up".

That's a weird thing that I find from Microsoft. They make "staying on the same product" sometimes harder than "switching to a totally different one that feels more familiar to end users."

Office 2007 was the famous example. LibreOffice felt more like O2003 than O2007 did. People wanting to stay with what they knew, changed.