@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

Going word-by-word, yes, the above is just a bunch of disks. For sure. That is what it is. But it's useless like that.

What a JBOD is in IT terms, is a JBOD enclosure specifically. When you refer to a JBOD, you are referring something like Microsoft links to or one of those DataON JBOD storage enclosures.

But we have a term for that, too. A disk enclosure. Even in the MS working they have to say JBOD Enclosure. If JBOD means enclosure, then they are saying "enclosure enclosure" which would be a rack of enclosures or something. Clearly MS is not clear internally as to what it means. Is JBOD the disks or the enclosure? They go back and forth.

Which is my point. Microsoft is the best possible reference - if they can't figure it out, can't agree with themselves and don't even come close to agreeing with Wikipedia, common usage or common sense... obviously the term doesn't have a place in IT. There is simply never a time that using the term is meaningful or useful. It never clarifies and it never provides additional information. It is, at best, confusing and redundant.

Microsoft is using the term "JBOD". They only add the word "enclosure" depending on the context. It appears that way to me anyways.

For example, "SAS connected JBODs that comply with Windows Certification requirements"
vs.
"These HBAs are connected to all JBOD enclosures in the file server cluster, and can’t have built-in RAID functionality."

Example, "RAID adapters, if used, must have all RAID functionality disabled and must not obscure any attached devices, including enclosure services provided by an attached JBOD."
vs.
"Serial ATA (SATA) or Serial Attached SCSI (SAS) connected disks, optionally in a just-a-bunch-of-disks (JBOD) enclosure"

Or here, where they use both in the same sentence! "Enough JBOD enclosures to tolerate an entire JBOD failing or becoming disconnected"

Every time in Microsoft documentation they use the word JBOD, it's used correctly that I've seen. It's used to mean one thing, always. It's never used to mean anything other than this: http://dataonstorage.com/dns-jbod-enclosure/dns-2608-4u-32-bay-12gbps-sas-enterprise-jbod-storage-enclosure.html

This is what Microsoft considers a JBOD: https://www.windowsservercatalog.com/results.aspx?&bCatID=1645&cpID=0&avc=10&ava=0&avt=0&avq=0&OR=1&PGS=25

An enclosure of a bunch of disks: "...just-a-bunch-of-disks (JBOD) enclosure" as in the above link that they point to.

So a JBOD, is a specific object or product. Yes, the words themselves have a different meaning than when used as a whole.

For example, this is a JBOD: http://dataonstorage.com/dns-jbod-enclosure/dns-2608-4u-32-bay-12gbps-sas-enterprise-jbod-storage-enclosure.html

This is NOT a JBOD:

Going word-by-word, yes, the above is just a bunch of disks. For sure. That is what it is. But it's useless like that.

What a JBOD is in IT terms, is a JBOD enclosure specifically. When you refer to a JBOD, you are referring something like Microsoft links to or one of those DataON JBOD storage enclosures.

I think you are thinking too deep into it looking to pick it apart. Going in to it with the preconception of it being wrong will lead you to nitpicking.

If I were you, I would sum up the definition of what JBOD is supposed to mean. Not nitpick it apart to make it mean the literal pile of disks the individual words mean. I believe it is supposed to mean what I linked above: http://dataonstorage.com/dns-jbod-enclosure/dns-2608-4u-32-bay-12gbps-sas-enterprise-jbod-storage-enclosure.html. And I also believe that's what most IT Professionals think it means. Sure, you'll have the few who are just wrong, but the majority I'm talking about. Maybe not, but the people who deal with the things do.

@JaredBusch said in If you could go back, what would you do?:

@Tim_G said in If you could go back, what would you do?:

If you could go back in time knowing what you know now, what would you do as a profession, if an IT career is not an option?

I think I would be a commercial airline pilot for the long term, or a meteorologist... though I'd prefer pilot.

Next up would be some kind of theoretical sciences like physics.

Living internationally, because I would have put every penny into a few certain stocks over the years.

Haha, yes. But that's not what I meant. I edited my OP to clarify.

If you could go back in time knowing what you know now, what would you do as a profession, if an IT career is not an option?

I think I would be a commercial airline pilot for the long term, or a meteorologist... though I'd prefer pilot.

Next up would be some kind of theoretical sciences like physics.

Edit: By "knowing what you know now", I mean your likes and dislikes, what interests you, how you feel about the world.

@Dashrender said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@DustinB3403 said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

As a term JBOD doesn't make a lot of sense, I agree. The term I think was meant more as marketing then a technical term.

I've literally never heard any vendor use the term in marketing, white papers, in person... nothing. I've never heard the term outside of SMB IT pros talking about... random things.

Hold the phone.. didn't MS use it for a bit while talking about Exchange?

Really?

I've seen it used all over the place in official docs. Just a super quick search as an example: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831739(v=ws.11).aspx

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

Maybe a disk is to a RAID as a brick is to a house. A JBOD is to a RAID as a truck of bricks are to a house.

I say that because the word 'disk' is in JBOD. A bunch of disks. Not a single disk. A single disk can be a disk by itself... it could be a part of an existing raid, or it might not be. A JBOD is a bunch of disks. The definition of JBOD is that it's a bunch of disks, that are not yet part of a RAID, which also has the word 'disk' in it.

If you say a JBOD is the underlying foundation of a RAID... it's not. Yes, a RAID is made up of a bunch of disks. But to say you have a RAID on top of a JBOD... you are kind of saying you have a house built on top of a truck of bricks. Yes, you built it from a truck of bricks, but it's no longer a truck of bricks. Just like those disks are no longer a JBOD, now that they are RAIDED.

So in that case SS cannot use JBOD nor can RAID. Everything starts as JBOD and nothing ends as it. So never a time to use the term, right?

And JBOD is something you can never know about at the storage layer if you are using this definition. Even if you make JBOD and present JBOD to the next team or layer, their use of it would make it no longer JBOD.

SS requires JBOD. RAID requires JBOD, too.

I think JBOD term itself in the industry has been formed to mean an enclosure of a bunch of disks... such as a DAS enclosure you'd hook up to a server via an HBA.

Perhaps that's not technically correct, but for practical purposes, it works.

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

Maybe a disk is to a RAID as a brick is to a house. A JBOD is to a RAID as a truck of bricks are to a house.

I say that because the word 'disk' is in JBOD. A bunch of disks. Not a single disk. A single disk can be a disk by itself... it could be a part of an existing raid, or it might not be. A JBOD is a bunch of disks. The definition of JBOD is that it's a bunch of disks, that are not yet part of a RAID, which also has the word 'disk' in it.

If you say a JBOD is the underlying foundation of a RAID... it's not. Yes, a RAID is made up of a bunch of disks. But to say you have a RAID on top of a JBOD... you are kind of saying you have a house built on top of a truck of bricks. Yes, you built it from a truck of bricks, but it's no longer a truck of bricks. Just like those disks are no longer a JBOD, now that they are RAIDED.

Maybe a disk is to a RAID as a brick is to a house. A JBOD is to a RAID as a truck of bricks are to a house.

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

What conversation are you picturing where using the term disks or using the term JBOD would separate things? Every RAID array is JBOD under the hood. So any situation where saying disks would be confusing, so would JBOD.

In fact, the conversation that triggered this was someone using exactly these wrong terms - calling the banks of his RAID 10 disks JBODs when looking "under" the RAID level. And he's as much right as not, they are indeed JBOD at that level. But he could have just said "disks", too.

I meant it as that disks can be either raided or unraided. JBODs cannot be raided. If they were raided, it wouldn't be a JBOD anymore. However, a disk can still be a disk whether it's raided or not. See what I mean?

Kind of. But when you look under a RAID array, it's a JBOD still... because under that level they are not yet RAIDed.

The SS world uses JBOD in that way.... it's JBOD even though RAID is on top.

Ah you replied before I could clarify, but you raised a good point.

Maybe JBOD is best described as what's presented to the OS? Maybe that's a direction we could take this?

That's problematic too. Because software RAID is after the OS, but before the file system. Would a Synology be a JBOD?

Depends on how you look at it. A JBOD (of many disks) is presented to the OS as a bunch of single disks. A RAID (of many disks) is presented to OS as a single disk.

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

What conversation are you picturing where using the term disks or using the term JBOD would separate things? Every RAID array is JBOD under the hood. So any situation where saying disks would be confusing, so would JBOD.

In fact, the conversation that triggered this was someone using exactly these wrong terms - calling the banks of his RAID 10 disks JBODs when looking "under" the RAID level. And he's as much right as not, they are indeed JBOD at that level. But he could have just said "disks", too.

I meant it as that disks can be either raided or unraided. JBODs cannot be raided. If they were raided, it wouldn't be a JBOD anymore. However, a disk can still be a disk whether it's raided or not. See what I mean?

Kind of. But when you look under a RAID array, it's a JBOD still... because under that level they are not yet RAIDed.

The SS world uses JBOD in that way.... it's JBOD even though RAID is on top.

Ah you replied before I could clarify, but you raised a good point.

Maybe JBOD is best described as what's presented to the OS? Maybe that's a direction we could take this?

@Tim_G said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

What conversation are you picturing where using the term disks or using the term JBOD would separate things? Every RAID array is JBOD under the hood. So any situation where saying disks would be confusing, so would JBOD.

In fact, the conversation that triggered this was someone using exactly these wrong terms - calling the banks of his RAID 10 disks JBODs when looking "under" the RAID level. And he's as much right as not, they are indeed JBOD at that level. But he could have just said "disks", too.

I meant it as that disks can be either raided or unraided. JBODs cannot be raided. If they were raided, it wouldn't be a JBOD anymore. However, a disk can still be a disk whether it's raided or not. See what I mean?

I still feel I need to clarify what I mean, as it can be taken differently than how I mean it.

If you have a RAID, it consists of disks. Those disks are still called disks whether they are in a raid or not. However, if you have a JBOD, you can be certain that there is no RAID involved because it's still at the JBOD stage. Once you apply RAID to a JBOD, it's no longer a JBOD then.

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

What conversation are you picturing where using the term disks or using the term JBOD would separate things? Every RAID array is JBOD under the hood. So any situation where saying disks would be confusing, so would JBOD.

In fact, the conversation that triggered this was someone using exactly these wrong terms - calling the banks of his RAID 10 disks JBODs when looking "under" the RAID level. And he's as much right as not, they are indeed JBOD at that level. But he could have just said "disks", too.

I meant it as that disks can be either raided or unraided. JBODs cannot be raided. If they were raided, it wouldn't be a JBOD anymore. However, a disk can still be a disk whether it's raided or not. See what I mean?

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

Does using the JBOD term add something to the terminology compared to just saying disks?

Disks doesn't tell you if they are Raided or not. JBOD specifically tells you they are not.

The technical definition of JBOD are disks that haven't been RAIDed or anything yet.

So in that sense, you would use JBOD as in my SS example no matter the enclosure... not just with DAS. In anything.

@scottalanmiller said in Should We Ever Talk About JBODs:

I'm not clear when we can ever usefully use the term where it doesn't prompt a long and confusing explanation to clear up what is actually intended. I have a feeling that this is a term that simply should not exist as there is just no time that using it is useful.

Does anyone have any idea of a time when it would actually be important to have this term and, if so, how would we use it without further explanation?

You configure Storage Spaces from JBODs. Or technically, DAS JBODs. JBOD enclosure?

I have a pile of JBODs... Literally a heap of hard drives waiting to find a trash can.

Its like comparing ReFS to NTFS. You should always use NTFS unless you have specific reasons to use ReFS. One example is using ReFS on a VM storage only volume... it will only be holding .vhdx files.

Maybe that's not the best example because you can't use ReFS some places... but I think enough to get my point across.

Happy birthday @scottalanmiller

@Grey said in GPO Path?:

So, what's the current method to add a single trusted site to my intranet zone in GPO, eh? And where do I modify all of the trusted sites/zones and activex now?

I was answering the above question. Of course these will say not configured, because you haven't configured them yet.

So if 4th is strictly using RSAT... would 5th be full automation using SCCM, SCVMM, Orchestrator, and App Controller?

@Grey said in GPO Path?:

@DustinB3403 said in GPO Path?:

What is your domain functional level?

@DustinB3403 said in GPO Path?:

Are you using IEAK 10 by chance?

I installed it last night when I saw your question. It's on my laptop. Nothing happens when I click on it so I'm unsure what's going on here. I'd be happier if it just gave me the ADM file.

@Tim_G said in GPO Path?:

@Grey said in GPO Path?:

So, what's the current method to add a single trusted site to my intranet zone in GPO, eh? And where do I modify all of the trusted sites/zones and activex now?

Trusted sites are User Config > Policies > Admin templates > Windows Compontnets/Internet Explorer/Internet Control Panel/Security Page > Site to Zone Assignment List

The number 2 is trusted sites. You can use *.domain.com and *.ip, and IP

Every item in that tree is 'not configured' and I'm expecting that there should be items just as shown in my initial image. There should be some stuff for activex and a whole list of allowed/trusted sites and certs for many internal locations. This path doesn't have it, and the path listed (initial pic) doesn't exist.

You have "Trusted Sites Zone" selected. Select "Security Page", and edit the template named "Site to Zone Assignment List"