Network Attached Storage recommendations

[Big Dog]

sysadmin or gtfo

Organisations that divide the work up into teams big enough to cover leave I agree.

Here everyone has to wear many hats. We all have our specialties but if I am not here there are 5 others who can perform basic functions. Only difficult stuff waits for me.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

you need better someone else.

Nigga cant cli, aint worth shit.

Dude, I work with some pretty talented guys who all know their shit front to back and side to side but I can't expect then all to know my side. If they did I wouldn't be necessary.

sysadmin or gtfo

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

I would normally rate myself a pretty smart guy... rarely would I consider someone my equal. In the team I work in I would rate most of them as brighter and do my best to learn from them.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Akzle]

2015 and Linux still without a functional gui?

Sent via tapatalk.

openbox ftw.

But if you want pretty (pretty gay) you have a choice of 4 for most distros (ugly ass gnome3, kde, xfce and lxde are much compatible) then theres ~ another 3 or 4 each distro.
asides from that, customising them to do exactly what you want, and nothing else, is a piece of ease compared to winblows' blow.

and then many many distros that were written around a particular gui. Macnix and the like.

If you cant find/make a gui work for you. Your not l33t enough. (possibly retarded, actually)

[Big Dog]

The point of the gui isn't too make it work for the l33t so much as to work for the many. So that kind of misses the point of having a simplified interface.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Akzle]

The point of the gui isn't too make it work for the l33t so much as to work for the many. So that kind of misses the point of having a simplified interface.

Sent via tapatalk.

openbox ftw.

But if you want pretty (pretty gay) you have a choice of 4 for most distros (ugly ass gnome3, kde, xfce and lxde are much compatible) then theres ~ another 3 or 4 each distro.

. .

[eldog]

I don't do SQL, its not a server I am using just a older Vista upgraded box 8GB RAM Twin core Intel processor with 1.1 TB Hard drive made up of 2x hard drives in raid 10 config
Its an oldie but a solid worker, been very reliable apart from the usual Windows SNAFU

It wasn't tweaked much and I prefer it that way, simple solid and reliable.
Yes I like my outputs to be verbose so I know whats happening

I am not the usual pleb, I like to have a nice GUI so its simple to work out whats happening. I know it takes approx. 1/2 of whatever programming time is allowed to get that right, the other half is sorting out what the program does.

If there is a problem I can usually nut it out, just need the odd guiding hand to set me on the correct course, just like my riding.
Sometimes I need the big stick approach to make me actually tackle stuff and finish it on my own.....

just as I am doing currently with my riding, on my own, by myself, working out stuff and finally I will get pretty good at it, then I will move onto something else on the bucket list.

Acronius Backup 11.5 is what I am using, not bad so far.

[Big Dog]

I don't do SQL, its not a server I am using just a older Vista upgraded box 8GB RAM Twin core Intel processor with 1.1 TB Hard drive made up of 2x hard drives in raid 10 config
Its an oldie but a solid worker, been very reliable apart from the usual Windows SNAFU

Explains everything.

Not a server = needs a gui to do what you want.
older Vista = Robocopy won't do live copys of open files > Probably 32 bit which explains the file name length issue.
Twin core Intel processor = Mix that with Vista and that will be why so slow with the backup. Multiply your resulting processing time by a factor of 4 if you are using 32bit os to address greater than 512gb partitions (or 256gb if you don't have the large file name support patch).

IF it is fast enough for your needs no need to update but the file structures you describe really will perform better on 64bit.

[eldog]

Explains everything.

Not a server = needs a gui to do what you want.
older Vista = Robocopy won't do live copys of open files > Probably 32 bit which explains the file name length issue.
Twin core Intel processor = Mix that with Vista and that will be why so slow with the backup. Multiply your resulting processing time by a factor of 4 if you are using 32bit os to address greater than 512gb partitions (or 256gb if you don't have the large file name support patch).

IF it is fast enough for your needs no need to update but the file structures you describe really will perform better on 64bit.

Sorry Big Dog I put you a bit crook with that hasty reply.
Vista 64 bit upgraded to W8.1 64 bit
I suspect that there are quite a few remaining 32 bit drivers for all sorts of bits and pieces on the machine (1 is the original Intel Matrix Raid driver which has been upgraded and name changed to distance itself from all the problems of earlier drivers, which is why I am hesitant to 'upgrade' it without a very solid backup to rely on and have time to re install it if the worst happens)

The software I use is 64 bit but doesnt really use its capability much, if at all.
Only now is it trying to multithread itself but i think its just split the 2 parts of the drawing creation when it can.
Addressing 1.1 TB no problem, in fact I would have never considered the name length a problem until last week I was trying to backup and one of the suggested problems was the name length.

The age of the machine most likely puts it smack in the middle/end of the transistion between 32 to 64 with promises of 64 performance not really happening due to residual 32 drivers used else where

I liked Vista, never really had a problem...
W8.1 was a nightmare to install, didnt research it enough, didnt know about disappearing product keys blah, blah, blah but the CAD software upgrade meant I was in for Win7 or 8 either way and we didnt have the $ for a new system

[Akzle]

Multiply your resulting processing time by a factor of 4 if you are using 32bit os to address greater than 512gb partitions (or 256gb if you don't have the large file name support patch).

is that a fact?
i had an idea that is was to do with sector size.... (another thing windows is shit at) ie, 512 sectors... whereas good shit rocks out at 4096.
32bit limits you to individual file size of 2gb (?) the limit of fat partitions is 2T, i thought...

never mind that LFS has been implemented in winblows since 98...



all said. Vista is no use. for anything. burn it.

[Gremlin]

Ah... troubleshooting backup problems. Basically, unless you know otherwise you're pretty much pulling apart the entire network in your head and EVERYTHING has to be checked.

Now, obviously this can depend on whether there is something obvious that can be a bottleneck, otherwise the most obscure problems could be occuring. First up, the machine the backup is targetting, the network the data is transversing and the destination of the backup. You mention having WD NAS drives. I had the opportunity to directly test it against my FreeNAS a couple of days ago. Physically, they're both located next to each other, and plugged into an HP switch (my core switch). I copied an 8GB iso off my desktop onto both. WD could sustain a write around 32-33MB/s. FreeNAS sustained write was 100MB/s.

Bear in mind that small files vs large files will also have an impact on performance - and for details you're getting into the breakdown of hard drive config. Are you running multiple backups to the destination at once? Even a scheduling problem where one backup takes longer than it should then continues when the next backup starts... watch the disk queue length go through the roof...

Then you've got incompatibility of drivers/hardware with other hardware, resource allocation (jobs consuming too many resources or not enough) etc etc. Basically, unless you can easily locate the fault then you have to go through the entire chain with a fine tooth comb.

Just some random thoughts...

[Akzle]

I copied an 8GB iso off my desktop onto both. WD could sustain a write around 32-33MB/s. FreeNAS sustained write was 100MB/s.

and freenas is........


also, and you do mention this later. .iso are contiguous files.

Basically, unless you can easily locate the fault then you have to go through the entire chain with a fine tooth comb.

or. nix.

[Gremlin]

and freenas is........

Well duh. However, your blanket idea of 'nixing everything is stupid. You're not actually solving anything (yes, I'm getting annoyed at the pointless contribution). If I kept telling my clients to replace everything they had with something else I wouldn't have a job. You have to assess needs and requirements then recommend something appropriate. For the record, we tried a flavour of Linux on a client (reasonably tech savvy) and practically, it just didn't work. Too much work getting addons for flash/java etc working and RDP to the local server didn't perform that well. Our remote access onto it didn't work either, as it's all Windows based.

Oooh aaah, we're trapped in it... well, that's how a business network works. As soon as I need to synchronise calendars, contacts, sync mobile devices into the network, manage them, share mailboxes and so forth... Linux isn't even on the page...

Further, I'd never be suggesting FreeNAS to any regular home user. There are a lot of pitfalls, it's definitely not plug and play (well if you go for the commercial side then it sort of is) and there are a lot of routes that have an end game of data gone.

[Big Dog]

is that a fact?
i had an idea that is was to do with sector size.... (another thing windows is shit at) ie, 512 sectors... whereas good shit rocks out at 4096.
32bit limits you to individual file size of 2gb (?) the limit of fat partitions is 2T, i thought...

never mind that LFS has been implemented in winblows since 98...



all said. Vista is no use. for anything. burn it.

More an experience tells me thing.

I have gone from a dual core 32 bit vista install to a 64. Found it better but not good enough. Went to a win764 followed by the same on a quad core.
Backing up from the same disk set to the same disk.
A few clean rebuilds in there as well.
Post clean rebuild vista 64 used both cores for processing. PRE it only used one. I don't know why, but it does convince me upgrades are not as good as a clean install.
Had developer windows license and holy well used it to find out for myself what works instead of blindly following a mantra provided by someone else. Another factor many people overlook... if your free ram is bigger than your largest contiguous file backups are faster and your throughput more consistent.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

PS what .Net version are you running?
4/4.5?
If so consider attaching a USB drive and running a robocopy script in /mon mode on the folder your work in progress resides in. In the event of a catastrophic failure restore your acronis backup and copy in your current files. Then you only lose unsaved work and maybe work saved less your monitor internal.

Sent via tapatalk.