The Ubiquiti is not an UTM in any way. In that space, the leader is Fortinet. No one can beat their price/performance for what they do. I use Ubiquiti in many places, but when a real UTM is needed I choose Fortinet.
Posts made by Francesco Provino
RE: Linux-based StarWind VSAN: hardware-agnostic, minimalistic, and FREE SDS
Is this tied together with VMWare? I thought this was going to be usable on Fedora, for example.
If the Starwind software is running on Linux, the hypervisor shouldn't matter. You'll be able to mount the share Starwind it's exporting on XenServer or KVM just as well, but well all the experts just in case. @KOOLER @Oksana
I'm asking because Linux and SW vSAN are worded everywhere as if it's 100% tied to VMWare, with no other use case. I can't imagine that being the case, but am asking to make sure... perhaps it's worded like that because it's written by a VMWare Architect trying to boast and sell VMWare. Just wondering, because I was under the impression you can use it how you want, not just with VMWare.
I agree with you, seems like bad marketing. I’ll be interestes in using it with KVM, for example. I thing it will just export iSCSI.
RE: KVM Backing and Support
- Why do you worry about these things with agent based and not with agentless, even though they are equal and both affected by them just the same?
Because I install altaro have a single admin interface an can backup delta vm in a few minutes.
Sure, but Veeam agentless will do that, too. There are good options in both directions.
Sure. My point was: I'm not aware of a win/linux solution agent based with central management which costs less then agentless. Therefore when I deployed kvm it was with some mix and match stuff got from github and glued into some.bash script. Ok for me but not really nice to offload to others. My ignorance about Good non diy backup solutions is the only reason I do not deploy kvm again.
Grr... Damn phone. Lot of typos...
I’m in the same boat. I’m investigating Bacula, IBM Spectrum, and Commvault… but it seems that Veeam still has an edge.
RE: Evaluating OneDrive for Business to replace traditional end point backup
I'm sure there are cases for it, but not typically as with your own Nextcloud. There, is only one copy of data and no version control or geo redundancy.
NextCloud has version control. And as many copies and as much geo-redundancy as you desire.
But it doesn't include this geo-redundancy with a build it yourself approach. (Usually)
It does every time you choose it.
It's like saying "deploying your own servers don't have passwords." Of course they always do, if you set the password. You can't use "people decide not to do it" for a deploy it yourself solution as if it is lacking it. Everyone chooses how to deploy, everyone has the option.
It would be like saying that most cars you drive yourself can't drive to the beach, but in reality you just meant that most people drive to the grocery store rather than the beach. It's not that the car doesn't go where you want, it's that you chose not to go there with it. Very different things.
ODfB has the amount of georedundancy and protections that it comes with, no more, no less. It has a set amount. NextCloud has as much, or as little, of both as the deployer desires. NextCloud has more protection, optionally, than ODfB.
This is true only to a certain degree. It seems like an exaggeration in my perspesctive. You can make it geo-redundand using external piece of software, of course… like 99% of the software out there.
RE: Where to buy used, refurbished server in Italy?
Hi, it’s my business (also)! PM me if you are interested :).
RE: Application clustering VS RAID with modern SSD
Again, valid point. The alternative is to put another pcie ssd in the first node and raid it (mdadm). And, of course, buy another TWO of them and put it in the other node, in case of the first one failed. This is gonna be much higher in costs…
That's misleading because it's not the real alternative. If you were okay with no RAID, but two nodes, you are okay with one node and RAID. Your leap to needing a second node doesn't make sense, it's a level of reliability you don't require. So that's an apple to the orange.
It's a second SSD in the single node and NO second node that is comparable, and easily safer, than two nodes without RAID. Even if it isn't safer, it's REALLY close.
So you can't use the "need a second node with RAID" scenario as a comparison for anything, it's outside of the scope and not roughly comparable. So ignore it, it's not relevant.
Your options are... one node with RAID, or two nodes with network RAID. Single node with regular RAID is faster, simpler, cheaper, and easily comparable if not better for reliability. A second node with no RAID is just vastly impracticable unless it is somehow free while having RAID is not.
Uhm, I’m sorry but I don’t agree with you.
The network RAID will have the same cost (always one other SSD) and BETTER reliability, because even if the mainboard/cpu/ecc fail in the first node, I will have another ready-to-go host with all I need to start my environment.
There is also the possibility of create TWO drbd replica set, one active on the first node and the other active on the second; that way, I can easily double the total cpu count and ram available for the VMs… sort of hyperconvergency on the cheap!