@gjacobse said in Designing for tech startup: Network, AD, Backup etc:

@DustinB3403 said in Designing for tech startup: Network, AD, Backup etc:

I suppose you could use Storage Spaces Direct (all windows across the entire thing) but I wouldn't consider SSD at all mature nor production ready, especially at this scale.

Thanks, had not heard of this.

DataOn solutions fully support this and vice versa. They are experienced with this kind of scale and much larger.

@Dashrender said in Domain Planning: Network shares or ,..:

@dafyre said in Domain Planning: Network shares or ,..:

@notverypunny said in Domain Planning: Network shares or ,..:

Does NC allow exposure of their "file shares" as smb? If you have users that can't / don't want to use a browser-based access they can always mount it in windows explorer via webdav. Alfresco allows (allowed?) access via both, but the last time I played with it the performance was meh, which I attributed to it being built on java...

You can mount NextCloud into a drive letter or folder using WebDav.

The question does become the aforementioned performance issue (if there is one).

I wonder how file locks are handled when using WebDav?

There are a few topics elsewhere here where file locking and cloud hosting were discussed. You do have to give up what we have all come to appreciate in file locking. Here is a response in one of those other topics I spoke about:

@scottalanmiller said in file sharing in the 21st century:

@Donahue said in file sharing in the 21st century:

I am aware of that. It's online locking that I am after. Though, I will concede that any locking scheme has to plan for both online and offline. I like sync because of local performance and offline availability, but it really feels like it is best for non shared files. When you add multiple users into the mix, almost everything goes out the window, especially when and if they go offline.

Everything is best for non-shared files 🙂

SMB shines at "always online, always nearly local" files because it handles offline so poorly. It's a balance. To handle offline or very distant (e.g. high latency) networks well, you have to sacrifice locking.

I've been using Duplicati where I need a standalone backup of a thing. Web based management interface makes it super simple to manage.

you can set static entries in EdgeOS.

Always set DHCP to give out the ERL for DNS. set service dhcp-server shared-network-name LAN subnet 10.254.103.0/24 dns-server 10.254.103.1 Always set the ERL to look at itself for a DNS (127.0.0.1 set system name-server 127.0.0.1 Make sure that DNS is listening on your LAN ports. set service dns forwarding listen-on eth1 set service dns forwarding listen-on eth1.2 Set DNS forward lookup to whatever. set service dns forwarding name-server 10.254.103.4 # my Pi-Hole set service dns forwarding name-server 1.1.1.1 If oyu are on a domain, tell EdgeOS to forward those to the DC. set service dns forwarding options server=/ad.domain.com/10.254.0.21 set service dns forwarding options server=/domain.local/10.254.0.21 set service dns forwarding options server=/domain/10.254.0.21 Set up your static DNS entries. set system static-host-mapping host-name nas inet 10.254.103.7

Also what type of drives are you using?

@dbeato said in Synology NAS - Can't delete:

@bbigford said in Synology NAS - Can't delete:

@dbeato said in Synology NAS - Can't delete:

As an aside question, do you have it that it recycles the storage after certain time with Synology to Synology backuP?

What do you mean recycles? It's not doing an offsite move-delete if that's what you mean, it's copying it in case either building is lost. Maybe I don't understand the question.

So when I setup the backup between Synology devices, I make sure that after a certain time/age the backup device deletes the older snapshots/backups.

Ah, got it. What are you using for backup software that you'd rather your backup software not delete it? Also, are you using Synology CLI for that? I don't know that I've noticed that option in the GUI as part of the task creation.

Glad to know this worked. I have had 3 different Synology NAS boxes over the past 6 years- An 1812+ that was just retired, 1813+, still going after almost 5 years and a new 3617xs and wondered what would happen if the box died. Never had any issues with any (knocking on wood).

Veeam DOES recommended avoiding low end NAS devices, and recommends SAN over NAS because Veeam wants block protocols. These parts are true and we don't need to watch videos as they are available in writing from @Rick-Vanover - we even have the author of the best practices here in the community!

https://www.veeam.com/blog/vmware-backup-repository-configuration-best-practices.html

0_1501712220659_Screenshot from 2017-08-02 17-16-46.png

The keys here are "low end" which is an issue around support. The misleading bit is that NAS means server, so low end servers are every bit affected in the same ways. The QNAP, Synology, ReadyNAS and other such devices are not actually NAS but Unified Storage, SAN as much as NAS. That Veeam recommends SAN instead of NAS is a protocol choice, it does not make those devices any less applicable. We should not be calling them NAS, as that is misleading, they are equally both.

If we really look at the guidance and consider what it could mean, the only real concern is "low end" and low end is always of some concern. Why spend so much on Veeam and Windows licensing and then get cheap on the hardware? You want solid storage hardware and solid support. But nothing here is telling us that there is anything wrong at all with these kinds of devices and certainly the issue is not some kind of corruption caused by the fact that they are in this product category.

@dafyre said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:

With Starwind's coming Linux release (or has it already been released?)... Would this not be done in a Linux VM? That would eliminate concerns about licensing and such.

StarWind Linux VSA is released

There's no problem to install anything like us into parent partition, question was is it OK to use it as a file server with a free version of Windows

@JaredBusch said in A recommendation for Buffalo NASes (or at least their support):

I do prefer Synology over Buffalo though.

HW wise, the main argument for synology over buffalo here in Italy is if you use a NAS as a primary file server: no Terastation 5000 has redundant powersupply, nor easy maintainance is allowed on site. If power suppl. blows: byebye data, you are KO for a couple of days.

synology is really well engineered. I'm thinking specifically at TS5400r vs rs815rp+

(also buffalo do not provides units populated with 8TB disks (not yet... hell 8TB in a single disk, brrr))

lol - the ultimate in ransomware protection. watch they don't raise prices, that's a premium feature

@scottalanmiller said in FreeNAS Gets Hit by the Jurassic Park Effect:

HCL

Yes, agreed!

@JaredBusch said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:

@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:

@JaredBusch said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:

@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:

@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:

@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:

@scottalanmiller said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:

@travisdh1 said in Synology DSM 6.1 Released with Active Directory Server:

Hrm, fast-clone. Probably time to try out a Btrfs based file server at home.

It's good stuff.

Yeah, I know brtfs is the way to go, I just haven't tried it out yet myself. Starting out on IRIX with XFS back in the day makes me a too nostalgic.

I still use XFS for everything.

When will be the right time to switch to btrfs then? We know it's been stable for long enough that it's becoming the default in a number of distributions now, but has it really been battle tested well enough yet?

Also, should we maybe make another thread for the btrfs discussion?

The answer here is you do not switch. You install a distro letting it do its native thing by default and less you have an over arcing huge reason to override defaults. So you will get this when you install a new system that now has it as a default.

openSuse, for example, has had it as default for two years.

Really though, I prefer XFS for anything that isn't a storage machine. VMs need something mature, stable and light. XFS does that well.

But does your preference mean that you will override a default installs choice just because that is your preference?

Using anything but default should have very clear reasons because the first time somebody besides you have to troubleshoot it there will be big problems.

I would often, yes actually. XFS is not like an odd, unsupported option. It's just not the default. It's still completely core to openSuse's design. They simply had to pick which one they were going to use when someone did not choose one or the other and they opted for extra features over lean design for those that don't know which they want, which I think makes sense. Just like CentOS opts for the simplicity of using root for administration instead of sudo, but makes it super easy to enable sudo. It's not default, but it's fully supported. They just had to choose something as default.

Nice writeup @shannon