@dafyre said in Hot Swap vs. Blind Swap:

@scottalanmiller said in Hot Swap vs. Blind Swap:

@dafyre said in Hot Swap vs. Blind Swap:

@scottalanmiller said in Hot Swap vs. Blind Swap:

Intel has started calling Blind Swap - "Surprise Hot Plug".

Because you're surprised when you blindly swap the right drives?

The system is surprised, to say the least.

Also: Holy Necropost, Batman!

Ha, but with new updates.

Here is the CentOS / Red Hat documentation talking about hot swapping with MD.

Yeah, no question that everything medical in America is awful. You know it is bad when all of the Americans living in Nicaragua rave about the healthcare here!

@ryan-from-xbyte said:

In the interest of reliability and compatibility, we opted to only support enterprise level SSDs. We actually only recently supported non-Dell drives because of those same reasons. We started talking with Edge and found a partner who would co-developer firmware to limit the risk to our customers. If Dell makes a firmware change, we didn't want our customers to experience any issues with their drives.

That what made me reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally nervous about non-DELL drives.

Not that anything would happen, but the last thing you need is some change form DELL and then your drives stop working, or booting.

Total BS that they do that, but whatever. It's their company and there are other options.

@scottalanmiller said:

@Dashrender said:

@scottalanmiller said:

He does have on board hardware RAID. The problem is not his card but his hot swap bays.

You mean because of the lack of empty caddies? Sure I understand that, but I addressed that in my post.

oh, meaning rip the caddies off. I didn't understand what you were implying. That makes more sense.

Exactly. I've considered doing the same for my HP server.

@scottalanmiller said:

Where DNS != DNS

That was CONFUSING

I knew exactly what @scottalanmiller issue was when I read his post.. I updated my post for clarity.

I bet the primary case is buildings burning down and people making off with the server from the ashes 😉

I've heard of people having fires, not heard of anyone having a stolen server in the real world. Even with SMBs rarely doing anything to protect against it.

I like the sound of it as well. Hopefully it will be recorded too.

Not really. I'll do it in a few years when it's time to upgrade disks. But most of that will end up in Amazon Cloud Drive soon.

That is the biggest question, really. And also, if it was saved as a DOCX or an ODT from LibreOffice.

@StrongBad said in Backup System For 5 PC SMB:

@BRRABill said in Backup System For 5 PC SMB:

@StrongBad

I think the final takeaway, especially for non-IT folk, is to move away from a system that requires this sort of backup.

Ideally, of course.

The age old answer ... "depends"

Looping back to this, in the past month I've worked with three different companies that all experienced significant data loss or downtime because of their choice of FreeNAS. Two suffered from not having front loaded their engineering and had an inability to support their servers during routine operations and caused major outages because of it along with significant cost for repairs, and one company that lost its data because of unnecessary bugs in the FreeNAS GUI code that would have been avoided has they been simply on FreeBSD.

Additionally this past week FreeNAS 10 "Coral" was demonstrated to be so incredibly unstable a month after being released that they had to recall the release and revert to a "beta" status indefinitely. For a trivial end user application this would be bad, for a critical storage infrastructure component on which companies need to have rock solid faith, it's unthinkable.

@dafyre said:

@scottalanmiller said:

That's why comparing 500GB to 500GB for a "Watt per GB" comparison.

I assume we're talking average... Some HDDs are set to time out and switch to low power mode and stuff... and some folks (like me) go in and turn that off). SSDs have the advantages of not having to spin up or down. They simply draw less power.

Spinning down a Winchester drive dramatically increases its chance of death. So would increase costs in other places. Not sure if that would save money over the drives lifespan or not since it easily cuts 75% of the lifespan off.

@BRRABill said:

It seems as though you can install another DC, then replicate, then demote the EVAL one.

But I think I'll just go with not doing that. 🙂

Yes, it wouldn't be a functional AD if you could not do that. You risk schema issues, though.

@Jason said:

@scottalanmiller said:

Depends. I've never seen an enterprise shop with enterprise system admins that were not more expensive than the storage guys. Close, but systems is the top payer. I've known many $200K and higher systems people. No storage people at $200K. But lots over $150K.

Cost more but can do more. I'm not saying what my pay is, but my bonus is more than my whole salary at my previous employer.

Yup, system admins generally can do "nearly anything." Whereas storage admins generally can do only one thing. And if you change storage products you generally have to replace your storage team too.

@coliver said:

Contact NTG I'm pretty sure they can do it without pushing any products. Although there is a fee it is probably worth it.

Yes, and.... yes.

Keep me updated, if I have to kick our packagers, let me know!

@Dashrender said:

I'm not sure about that if that was the case, then why is Scott so dead set against Hot Spares? Unless he's only against hot spares for spinning rust RAID 5.

Hot Spares with R5 are insane as it could be a live part of the array making it a RAID 6. RAID 1, same thing, just make it part of the array. Both cases are insane to have hot spares.

With RAID 6 you can have them in situations where the hot spare does not push you unnecessarily close to RAID 10 and RAID 5.3 (aka RAID 7) is not available. But that's relatively uncommon.

In RAID 10 you can have them but they only make sense in very large arrays or cases where you just can't get to the array to swap the failed drives.

In some cases it is an architectural problem, in others it is that the cost is just not justified.

Seems like a good move. WD has been in the need of a way to address flash storage for a while.