@Obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dbeato said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Obsolesce Why is it that we need to talk like we are know it all? it is so pedantic.
That isn't knowing more than anyone whose been familiar with IT the last decade+. I cant ever remember a time where checking the firewall wasn't part of the basic troubleshooting steps. It was just surprising that he pretended to have basis for the thought based on a blip like 20 years ago.
@travisdh1 said in LTO-9 Tape Drives:
@pete-s said in LTO-9 Tape Drives:
@travisdh1 said in LTO-9 Tape Drives:
@pete-s said in LTO-9 Tape Drives:
@eleceng said in LTO-9 Tape Drives:
Noticed that the LTO 9 tapes have just been released (been waiting a while) and I need to purchase some and a stand-alone LTO-9 drive (not a whole library setup or magazine) but not having any luck finding one online to purchase.
i have a small office customer that has a huge amount of data to backup. We currently replicate to a Synology offsite (in the same town) but they want the tape to store out of state.
Has anyone seen any single stand-alone LTO-9 tape drives I can order or anywhere I should be looking?
Didn't know LTO-9 was out...good to know!
I'll question the use of a single standalone tape drive versus a tape library. Tape library is much more flexible.
Sure, tape libraries are much more flexible, but they still don't make sense if you can get by with a single backup tape. Which I'm assuming is why @ElecEng is looking for a single LTO-9 drive.
I don't really agree because the tape library is a tape drive AND a robot that can switch tapes, keep track of them and store them.
It will do it's job regardless if the human is there or not. Which mean the backup will always run, regardless if the person doing it gets sick, is on vacation or if it's a holiday. That makes sense even when everything fits on one tape.
And a tape library is a scalable solution. Meaning you can run more backups more often if you need and if your data grows and overflows into two or more tapes, it's no big deal.
While true, there is also a huge added expense. Just because something is better doesn't excuse not doing proper business planning.
I don't know how much added expense you can expect. I've always been under the impression that the actual tape drive is the most expensive part in a smaller tape library.
Had a look at Dells site and the difference between a tape loader with the tape drive and a tape drive is about $2K.
A Dell TL1000 1U tape library with a LTO-8 drive is roughly $7K and a Dell 114x rack mounted LTO-8 tape drive is roughly $5K.
Then you need to add tapes. 10 tapes is a just over $2K.
So we're talking at minimum of $7K regardless. And LTO-9 is going to be more expensive, both the drive and the tapes. New generation always are.
@travisdh1 I wouldn't call $2K a huge added expense. But maybe the client does. Who knows.
@scottalanmiller said in Handling Downvotes:
@Pete-S said in Handling Downvotes:
By having both invisible all the potential drama is completely avoided.
It doesn't. The downvotes will have the same drama. The issue won't be addressed.
Remove downvotes all together then. If you have personal downvotes the drama will increase for sure. If you have problems now, it will become worse.
The question is what the downvote actually means. Is it a thumbs down on you or a disagreement with what you said?
@obsolesce said in Audit for Saved Credentials on Windows:
@pete-s said in Audit for Saved Credentials on Windows:
Sounds like you're solving the wrong problem.
He explained the problem he's trying to solve... you must have missed it.
I guess he got my unsolicited opinion, just like I got yours.
@DustinB3403 said in Fiber Optic patch panel:
@JaredBusch said in Fiber Optic patch panel:
@Pete-S said in Fiber Optic patch panel:
@JaredBusch said in Fiber Optic patch panel:
@FATeknollogee said in Fiber Optic patch panel:
Just in case anyone needs this info.
I buy all my fiber related stuff from fs.comI buy from distribution channels.
It's nice of you to support the middle man. Good when you need support.
I like to buy from FS because they are the manufacturer.
When I need something, I send two emails. One to CCB and one to Insight.
I am not going to deal with making accounts at 500 vendors for random shit I need to buy for random client.But it's more fun managing those relationships yourself!
........
It more fun for sure when you don't get the shit your ordered and you wonder why.
@scottalanmiller said in How Many HCI Nodes for the SMB:
@Pete-S said in How Many HCI Nodes for the SMB:
Or in AMD's case today you might have the 7702 with 64 cores @ 2.0GHz. That's more than 10 times as many cores compared to 10 years ago, but they are still only about 25% faster.
Let's use this example. IPC is what matters, clock speed is totally irrelevant and tells us nothing about system performance.
On a per core bases, from 2011 to 2020, AMD went from a per core performance of AMD FX-8150 at 3.15IPC/s in 2011 to AMD Ryzen 9 3950X 10.18IPC/s in 2019. A per core performance improvement of 323%. (Then it increased the core count, by a lot, as well.)
The increase per core in performance over time is normally staggering, it always has been. And this is what Moore's Law references - performance, not timing clock. The frequency is just the crystal timing circuit, it's an important part of a process under the hood, but not relevant to someone in IT, only to chip designers and electrical engineers.
That's why a four core AMD system today is roughly a 13 core system from just eight years ago. That was a LOT of horsepower eight years ago.
You read too many game sites. What you're talking about is not relevant.
@Pete-S said in RAID5 SSD Performance Expectations:
@scottalanmiller said in RAID5 SSD Performance Expectations:
@Pete-S said in RAID5 SSD Performance Expectations:
Having a drive failure will become such an odd failure like having a raid controller, a motherboard or a CPU fail. You'd just replace it and restore the entire thing from backup.
I think drives already fail less than RAID controllers. From working in giant environmnts, the thing that fails more than mobos or CPUs is RAM. That's the worst one as it does the most damage and is hard to mitigate.
The difference though is that mobo, controllers, PSUs, are stateless to the system but drives are stateful. So their failure has a different type of impact, regardless of frequency.
Well, the stateful-ness of the drives is not something we can count fully on, hence the saying "raid is not backup".
What I'm proposing is that when it becomes very unlikely that a drive fails we could rethink our strategy and go for single drives instead of raid arrays. In the very unlikely event that a failure did occur, we are restoring from backup, which we are prepared to do anyway.
With HDDs the failure rate is too high but with enterprise SSDs it's starting to get into the "will not fail" category.
As an example assume we have 4 servers with a RAID10 array of 4 x 2TB drives each. Annual failure rate of HDDs are a few percent, say 3% for arguments sake. With 16 drives in total, every year there is about 50% chance that a drive will fail. So over the lifespan of the servers it's very likely that we will see one or more drive failures.
Now assume the same 4 servers with a single enterprise 4TB NVMe drive in each. Annual failure rate is 0.4% (actual number a few years back). With 4 drives in total, every year there is less than 2% chance that any drive will fail. So over the lifespan of the server it's very unlikely that we will ever see a drive failure at all. Sure, if it does happen anyway, we are restoring from backup instead of rebuilding the array.
@scottalanmiller said in RAID5 SSD Performance Expectations:
@Pete-S said in RAID5 SSD Performance Expectations:
Having a drive failure will become such an odd failure like having a raid controller, a motherboard or a CPU fail. You'd just replace it and restore the entire thing from backup.
I think drives already fail less than RAID controllers. From working in giant environmnts, the thing that fails more than mobos or CPUs is RAM. That's the worst one as it does the most damage and is hard to mitigate.
The difference though is that mobo, controllers, PSUs, are stateless to the system but drives are stateful. So their failure has a different type of impact, regardless of frequency.
Well, the stateful-ness of the drives is not something we can count fully on, hence the saying "raid is not backup".
What I'm proposing is that when it becomes very unlikely that a drive fails we could rethink our strategy and go for single drives instead of raid arrays. In the very unlikely event that a failure did occur, we are restoring from backup, which we are prepared to do anyway.
With HDDs the failure rate is too high but with enterprise SSDs it's starting to get into the "will not fail" category.
@Obsolesce said in Windows Server 2012 - Task Scheduler Issue:
@anthonyh said in Windows Server 2012 - Task Scheduler Issue:
@Pete-S said in Windows Server 2012 - Task Scheduler Issue:
How many tasks are we talking about?
I would probably export them, delete and import just to be certain.
And make sure task history is enabled.
Looks like at least 4 tasks are having this issue (there may be some more, I need to do another pass through the scheduled tasks). I'm going to try an export/delete/import and see what happens...
Don't import the old task. Create it new. Just set the same options, but new start date.
Makes no sense. They will be exactly the same regardless. If you want another start date (which makes no difference) just change it in the xml.
@scottalanmiller said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
@Pete-S said in Application Virtualization in Linux Environment:
I had some problems with it when I tested it with NX as it only supported the older open source protocols.
Can you not install the commercial NX client onto it?
I can't remember but I think NoMachine didn't have the RPi3 version at the time. Maybe I should give this entire thing a new spin with the new RPi4 I have. In the past the problem with graphics on the RPi has been the GPU support and hardware offloading.