Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0
-
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@bnrstnr said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@guyinpv said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
When the company you work for is just a joke, you know it's time to leave.
Wouldn't I love to just demand we buy a 365 account for everybody, at the level that gives us Sharepoint, then simply force ourselves to use the system as-is and stop whining if some feature isn't exactly the way they want. Ya wouldn't that be nice.
Your company seriously can't afford $137.50/month??? ($12.50/user/month for 11 users)
Do the owners/decision makers know that it's really only that $12.50 per user? Do they think it's some outrageously expensive service? I just don't understand...
In your other post you say "There is no way I'm paying $140/m for Dropbox Business for 11 employees to have their own accounts. It's not necessary here, all way want is shared access to one master folder and very robust desktop sync."
Are you personally spending the money? $140 a month should be next to nothing for your company... it's like 8 cents/hour/employee
It makes no sense how the employer would rather pay for 100 hours of IT labor and still have no solution. I have feeling that 100 hours isnt an exaggerating either.....
People often view employment as a sunk cost and don't calculate the value of lost opportunity from keeping a resource tied up.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@bnrstnr said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@guyinpv said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
When the company you work for is just a joke, you know it's time to leave.
Wouldn't I love to just demand we buy a 365 account for everybody, at the level that gives us Sharepoint, then simply force ourselves to use the system as-is and stop whining if some feature isn't exactly the way they want. Ya wouldn't that be nice.
Your company seriously can't afford $137.50/month??? ($12.50/user/month for 11 users)
Do the owners/decision makers know that it's really only that $12.50 per user? Do they think it's some outrageously expensive service? I just don't understand...
In your other post you say "There is no way I'm paying $140/m for Dropbox Business for 11 employees to have their own accounts. It's not necessary here, all way want is shared access to one master folder and very robust desktop sync."
Are you personally spending the money? $140 a month should be next to nothing for your company... it's like 8 cents/hour/employee
It makes no sense how the employer would rather pay for 100 hours of IT labor and still have no solution. I have feeling that 100 hours isnt an exaggerating either.....
People often view employment as a sunk cost and don't calculate the value of lost opportunity from keeping a resource tied up.
At what point does the blame go to the employee vs the manager in this case? I understand that the employee is doing what they are being told, but at the same time they are not doing their job to the best of their ability.
So what happens is that you work for this place for X number of years and then when you go to leave, your old boss tells them it took a year to figure out cloud storage for 11 users. It would make the employee look really bad while being true. Even though it is obviously not his fault.
So at what point does the employee stick to their guns and say no? Isn't that in essence what they are supposed to be getting paid to do?
-
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
So at what point does the employee stick to their guns and say no? Isn't that in essence what they are supposed to be getting paid to do?
Only to the point that their boss decides that they don't. The scope of an employee's role is set by their boss. So what their role is to do might not be up to them.
It's IT's job to do this, but it sounds like his boss is running IT.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
So at what point does the employee stick to their guns and say no? Isn't that in essence what they are supposed to be getting paid to do?
Only to the point that their boss decides that they don't. The scope of an employee's role is set by their boss. So what their role is to do might not be up to them.
It's IT's job to do this, but it sounds like his boss is running IT.
I've been in situation like this before which is why I brought it up. It's the equivalent of being very ill with your career. It's a really nice feeling when you get out of a situation like this. Once you do, you'll never find yourself in the same situation again.
I hope OP can get out and go somewhere he is utilized and appreciated.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@bnrstnr said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@guyinpv said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
When the company you work for is just a joke, you know it's time to leave.
Wouldn't I love to just demand we buy a 365 account for everybody, at the level that gives us Sharepoint, then simply force ourselves to use the system as-is and stop whining if some feature isn't exactly the way they want. Ya wouldn't that be nice.
Your company seriously can't afford $137.50/month??? ($12.50/user/month for 11 users)
Do the owners/decision makers know that it's really only that $12.50 per user? Do they think it's some outrageously expensive service? I just don't understand...
In your other post you say "There is no way I'm paying $140/m for Dropbox Business for 11 employees to have their own accounts. It's not necessary here, all way want is shared access to one master folder and very robust desktop sync."
Are you personally spending the money? $140 a month should be next to nothing for your company... it's like 8 cents/hour/employee
It makes no sense how the employer would rather pay for 100 hours of IT labor and still have no solution. I have feeling that 100 hours isnt an exaggerating either.....
People often view employment as a sunk cost and don't calculate the value of lost opportunity from keeping a resource tied up.
This is totally the situation 99.9% of the time.
-
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
at they are being told, but at the same time they are not doing their job to the best of their ability.
The point is when the employee becomes the owner of the company. If you're aren't the owner - I dare you to go into your bosses office and say no - damnit - we're doing this this way!.. see if you still have a job.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
So at what point does the employee stick to their guns and say no? Isn't that in essence what they are supposed to be getting paid to do?
Only to the point that their boss decides that they don't. The scope of an employee's role is set by their boss. So what their role is to do might not be up to them.
It's IT's job to do this, but it sounds like his boss is running IT.
As i've come to realize, most IT is not run by a company's IT departments. Instead it's run by the management over IT, who are usually not IT themselves, but take the decision making completely upon themselves.
-
@Dashrender said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@scottalanmiller said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
So at what point does the employee stick to their guns and say no? Isn't that in essence what they are supposed to be getting paid to do?
Only to the point that their boss decides that they don't. The scope of an employee's role is set by their boss. So what their role is to do might not be up to them.
It's IT's job to do this, but it sounds like his boss is running IT.
As i've come to realize, most IT is not run by a companies IT departments. Instead it's run by the management over IT, who are usually not IT themselves, but take the decision making completely upon themselves.
Absolutely, that's what I see as well. The IT decision maker is most of the time (e.g. over 51% of the time) smoeone who claims to have nothing to do with IT, but demands to be in charge of it and makes all the key decisions.
-
You guys are spot on.
The other thing to consider is when there are alternative technologies available. There are dozens and dozens of methods and services to do a sync'd folder share. So they reject the cost of Dropbox because they know I can host free NC software on a server that costs us $10/m. Heck I could probably do one of those torrent-based peer-to-peer file sync tools for completely free.
The second expectation is that no matter what we choose to go with, it will just magically work perfectly and never have issues. Because I'm IT, therefore whatever solution we choose should never have problems under my care. Doesn't matter if I buy a bicycle or an Echo or a Mustang, they should all get from A to B in a 3 second 0-60 and never have blowouts and always have room for the entire family.
Take, for example, Office. They used Office ever since buying Office 97 from the computer store all those years ago. Then they managed to spend out for 2000 and then 2007. But never all the computers, oh no, just the "Main" computers. So we had a mess of '97, 2000, and 2007 Office installed all over when I first got here.
When 2007 was really getting long in the tooth I pushed for an upgrade so everybody could have the same version. By then, MS had gone to 365. So even through all the gnashing of teeth about having to "rent" software, I finally got approved to setup O365 accounts. Oh, but ya only buy accounts for these people, and those people can share them. Garrrr! Yes I told them it's against TOS. But the point is, we couldn't get any other "Office". They rejected OpenOffice and Libre and online Google Docs, etc. They only wanted what they were used to, and now we could only get it with 365. So we had to buy it.Similarly we are forced to buy our ecommerce products and services, shipping management tools, label hardware, hosting, etc etc.
I needed a half-decent NAS and my research ended up with the Synology. They don't tend to complain much about hardware purchases, but man do they hate having to do monthly service fees of any kind at all. Monthly fees are their kryptonite! I always try to find software and services with a lifetime license any time I come across a deal.
But when it comes to just getting a shared cloud folder, there is no clear winner in this category, nor are we used to any particular system. So it becomes purely a game of getting the cheapest thing possible, because there are so many options. And because the technology is handling such a simple/basic concept (i.e. shared folder), there aren't many reasons to think one method is any better than another. It's just, who has the best price.
But hey, the boss has a kid whose boyfriend once set up an XBOX, and they heard the Apple iCloud is nice, so of course they demand that is something we should use, based on authority. In a Windows-based company. Why is it always the boss's kid's girlfriend/boyfriend that gets to settle IT debates? Weird.
-
@Dashrender said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
@IRJ said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
at they are being told, but at the same time they are not doing their job to the best of their ability.
The point is when the employee becomes the owner of the company. If you're aren't the owner - I dare you to go into your bosses office and say no - damnit - we're doing this this way!.. see if you still have a job.
This happens every day where I work. Happened today in fact. It wasn't me today, but someone else who stuck to their guns.
What I've learned (hugely in part from ML), if you say something you better be ready to back it up. If you can prove you are correct then you justify your decision. You need to have documentation, best practices, and etc ready. Other things you can do is be prepared is to be ready to point out features saving while already doing your homework with the vendor.
At the end of the day, the business may decide to accept the risk and/or cost and that's fine. Sometimes there is a legitimate reason for the business to over rule IT. Most of the time in my experience, IT can at least get a compromise if they are well prepared.
I'm talking about instances with larger companies. Mostly 250+ employees where managerial structure is not in the form of a dictatorship. You know a dictator with a couple SS officers to keep everyone in line...
I've continually found that the stronger I fight to do things the right way, the more valuable I become. Even if it's not something management likes to hear. They know I'm not a drone that just follows orders. It leads to more respect, not less.
-
@guyinpv said in Synology one bad sector crashes whole volume RAID0:
You guys are spot on.
The other thing to consider is when there are alternative technologies available. There are dozens and dozens of methods and services to do a sync'd folder share. So they reject the cost of Dropbox because they know I can host free NC software on a server that costs us $10/m. Heck I could probably do one of those torrent-based peer-to-peer file sync tools for completely free.
@guyinpv have you considered not telling your boss all options and perhaps present two or three hand picked options?
It's your job to make the decision not give him all information to make an I'll advised decision.
NC would have been a great choice, if you would have just used it out of the box and not promise anything extra or out of the ordinary. Do standard backups at the server level and be done.
-
If you already have office 365, that would be the no brainer winner IMO.
I disagree with some of the others and say you don't even need SharePoint. One drive is fine IMO for what you need.
