@Dashrender said in Domain Planning: Network shares or ,..: @dafyre said in Domain Planning: Network shares or ,..: @notverypunny said in Domain Planning: Network shares or ,..: Does NC allow exposure of their "file shares" as smb? If you have users that can't / don't want to use a browser-based access they can always mount it in windows explorer via webdav. Alfresco allows (allowed?) access via both, but the last time I played with it the performance was meh, which I attributed to it being built on java... You can mount NextCloud into a drive letter or folder using WebDav. The question does become the aforementioned performance issue (if there is one). I wonder how file locks are handled when using WebDav? There are a few topics elsewhere here where file locking and cloud hosting were discussed. You do have to give up what we have all come to appreciate in file locking. Here is a response in one of those other topics I spoke about: @scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century: @Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century: I am aware of that. It's online locking that I am after. Though, I will concede that any locking scheme has to plan for both online and offline. I like sync because of local performance and offline availability, but it really feels like it is best for non shared files. When you add multiple users into the mix, almost everything goes out the window, especially when and if they go offline. Everything is best for non-shared files SMB shines at "always online, always nearly local" files because it handles offline so poorly. It's a balance. To handle offline or very distant (e.g. high latency) networks well, you have to sacrifice locking.

@scottalanmiller said in Dell MD1220 RAID 5 Rebuild Question: @Jimmy9008 said in Dell MD1220 RAID 5 Rebuild Question: @scottalanmiller said in Dell MD1220 RAID 5 Rebuild Question: @travisdh1 said in Dell MD1220 RAID 5 Rebuild Question: That makes a little more sense. They've negotiated a deal with Microsoft from the sounds of it. No, way, way more likely they just figured out how hard it is to get caught. I totally doubt anything like that is going on here. I have been told our annual budget for licensing which we pay is in the region of £600,000. Either way, not my problem Wow. But, sounds like only that high because they don't know what they are using, lol. The only way to get licensing truly down is to know what you use. Someone is both ignoring what is used, but also encouraging unlimited use. Both things set MS up to just keep making it more and more expensive. It's a trick, sounds easy, but makes one lazy licensing person encourage not keeping licensing lean - basically giving Microsoft the power to charge anything that they want down the road. Yeah, not your problem, but definitely a symptom of management issues and a lack of clear thinking. If they are truly paying their bills, my guess is a licensing "specialist" who has created their own job and knows if MS isn't used heavily, their job would go away, so is doing stuff to encourage you to lock in MS so that that specialist can't be eliminated. Basically creating their own job. Yeah, I don't disagree with anything you said. It's just not my issue. I still get to buy shiny new toys

@scottalanmiller lol

@Tim_G said in Deployment Scenarios for the Dell PowerEdge VRTX: I'd certainly love one of these for a home lab. That's for sure! I can see the whole ROBO deployment scenario. Even in single/several use situations, like you mentioned... such as for specific critical high-performing services that won't outgrow it. Anywhere else, I'd feel stuck with it... what happens if you start to outgrow the resources? How scalable is it? That's what would determine it's worth for usage in place of regular 2u deployment servers. Maybe I'm just not a blade type person. It's really meant for contained scenarios where you know how big you will grow. For a normal SMB, the issue is growing into it, rather than outgrowing it.

@JaredBusch said in Scott Alan Miller: Storage 101: @scottalanmiller said in Scott Alan Miller: Storage 101: @s.hackleman said in Scott Alan Miller: Storage 101: I didn't get to make it up, but I have been watching the sessions and burning up my data plan. Thanks for posting these. I also wanted to take a minute to call out the guy sitting front and center to just surf the internet the entire time SAM is talking. I didn't even notice that, I'm going to look for it now. In the red? That is @DustinB3403 Ha no it is not!

@Shuey said in Invalid Drive Movement from HP SmartArray P411 RAID Controller with StorageWorks MSA60: Thanks again to everyone who replied and gave feedback on this. It's great to know that there's a solid community of knowledgeable people who are willing to share their expertise - I really appreciate it!! Sadly we didn't find your solution. But happily you found it on your own!

I think describing the heads as moving in and out is more appropriate since they're mounted on an armature, like a record player, and not forward or backward. I often use record players as a description for clients when they ask how drives work. In my writing, I try to avoid use 'but' and things like it (however, etc.). Replace the word 'but' with 'and' as an exercise to see how it changes your readers' perception. You've got a couple sentences that are like Yoda. Eg, by doing this, and it's unnecessary. Similary, the logical volume... You missed a comma. The same occurs in drive impressions, the stack. A good article, and a great way to open discussion on SANs and how volumes, drives and RAID presentations can be partitioned or utilized efficiently.

@StuartJordan said in Backup File Server to DAS: Wow what a thread, took me a while to read through it We don't fool around around here!

Overview Storage Spaces Direct seamlessly integrates with the features you know today that make up the Windows Server software defined storage stack, including Scale-Out File Server, Clustered Shared Volume File System (CSVFS), Storage Spaces and Failover Clustering. Figure 4 below illustrates the “Storage Spaces Direct” stack:

What's amazing is how many people read my posts and then are like "oh wow, I had no idea you thought that" when I do these things

On HyperV, the use of SMB3 is pretty nascent and very vendors provide a good platform for it. So there tends to be a trend to remain with iSCSI for HyperV because of this. Not because SMB3 isn't the better option at a protocol level but because it is so new it remains mostly impractical.

@alexntg said: it would be a "dream job" for a storage-inclined IT professional. @ScottLongHDS Welcome!

Something to consider with a VRTX is that that is eight to sixteen Intel Xeon CPUs in a loaded chassis. That is a massive amount of compute power (with very little storage throughput.) So you have the CPU power to handle easily ~400 typical VMs. But the storage capacity and throughput of no more than an R510. Even an R720xd or R730xd has more drive capacity than the VRTX. So the ratio of IOPS and capacity to CPU is wildly different than with normal servers.