Paranoia, from watching very, very carefully... Kurt
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Link <[email protected]> wrote: > > No. > Centralized storage is incredibly seductive. It's very easy to start putting > everything on it, and then all your eggs are in one basket. What happens to > baskets when all the eggs are in it? > > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:23 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So in essence you are saying you would choose a Windows file server over one >> of these devices >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean-Paul Natola >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:18:26 -0400 >> >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> Perhaps I should more appropriately say, is I would buy two and replicate >> data to the other device as a hot spare of sorts. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Jonathan Link <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Synology or QNAP. >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:59 PM, J- P <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Which device are you referring to? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean-Paul Natola >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:56:48 -0400 >> >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> >> FWIW, I wouldn't put mission critical storage on one of these, that's what >> my EQ is for. I would use it for secondary guests that I need for >> administrative purposes, PGP server, AV aserver, WDS server, non mission >> critical file storage, such as application media and downloaded driver >> repository. >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Guyer, Don <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> My post was not to dispute anything ASB/Tran said or to dispute with you >> that 24 hours does not equal 1 day, rather to merely point out the fact that >> if I called into tech. support and they said they would call me back that >> same day but, did not for a full 24+ hours, then it’s not the same day. >> >> We are both being pedantic at this point. >> >> : ) >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Don Guyer >> Catholic Health East - Information Technology >> Enterprise Directory & Messaging Services >> 3805 West Chester Pike, Suite 100, Newtown Square, Pa 19073 >> email: [email protected] >> Office: 610.550.3595 | Cell: 610.955.6528 | Fax: 610.271.9440 >> For immediate assistance, please open a Service Desk ticket or call the >> helpdesk @ 610-492-3839. >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Jonathan Link >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:41 PM >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> >> But 24 hours is not 1-2 days, either. It is one day. If he said anywhere >> from 12 to 48 hours, I'd not get into a twist about it. But if I log a >> support request, and they get back to me sometime next day, for a device of >> this scale, I'd be fine with it. >> >> Don't get me wrong, anecdotal evidence means something, to be sure. And to >> be honest, I'd be more inclined to believe ASB over Jimmy Tran. So far, >> Jimmy has, at least contradicted himself, and ASB has directly contradicted >> him. Couple that with ASB's general knowledge and service to this forum, >> ASB's evidence wins. >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Guyer, Don <[email protected]> wrote: >> If I call you and leave a message at 9AM and you don’t call me back until >> 9AM the next day, it’s not the same day, correct? >> >> Regards, >> >> Don Guyer >> Catholic Health East - Information Technology >> Enterprise Directory & Messaging Services >> 3805 West Chester Pike, Suite 100, Newtown Square, Pa 19073 >> email: [email protected] >> Office: 610.550.3595 | Cell: 610.955.6528 | Fax: 610.271.9440 >> For immediate assistance, please open a Service Desk ticket or call the >> helpdesk @ 610-492-3839. >> >> >> >> From: >> [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Jonathan Link >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 1:11 PM >> >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but 12-24 hours is not 1-2 days. >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Jimmy Tran <[email protected]> wrote: >> Once they got back to me same day. Other times it was at least 12-24 hours. >> Guess it depends on the problem or timing of submitting the request? >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Andrew S. Baker >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:57 AM >> To: ntsysadm >> >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> I've used Synology support so far, and they got back to me same day both >> times. >> >> >> >> >> ASB >> http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker >> Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations & Information Security) for >> the SMB market… >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jimmy Tran <[email protected]> wrote: >> I like QNAP and Synology NAS devices. One thing to keep, QNAP has tech >> support over phone in the US. Synology only does email support and takes >> 1-2 days for response. >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Webster >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 7:57 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> I tried a QNAP NAS in my lab and even after getting ASB involved, we never >> could get the thing working the way it was advertised to work. I replaced >> the QNAP with a Synology and have been extremely pleased with the unit. ASB >> helped me get all the switch config stuff working. >> >> Write-up here: >> >> http://carlwebster.com/a-look-inside-websters-lab-2/ >> >> >> Carl Webster >> Consultant and Citrix Technology Professional >> http://www.CarlWebster.com >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on >> behalf of J- P [[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:09 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> So Clearly Buffalo is out of the running, >> >> And 1 vote for each Qnap and Synology >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean-Paul Natola >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:58:37 +0000 >> My experience as well…. >> >> John W. Cook >> Network Operations Manager >> Partnership For Strong Families >> 5950 NW 1st Place >> Gainesville, Fl 32607 >> Office (352) 244-1610 >> Cell (352) 215-6944 >> MCSE, MCP+I, MCTS, CompTIA A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4 >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of David Lum >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:53 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> Unless it’s a Buffalo Terrastation…. L (or at least the version I have which >> is ~4 yrs old). >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Guyer, Don >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 6:37 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> CIFS is the share from the storage (NAS/SAN) perspective. Once the server is >> connected to the CIFS share, you then apply NTFS perms to it, just like you >> would any folder/share. >> >> Regards, >> >> Don Guyer >> Catholic Health East - Information Technology >> Enterprise Directory & Messaging Services >> 3805 West Chester Pike, Suite 100, Newtown Square, Pa 19073 >> email: [email protected] >> Office: 610.550.3595 | Cell: 610.955.6528 | Fax: 610.271.9440 >> For immediate assistance, please open a Service Desk ticket or call the >> helpdesk @ 610-492-3839. >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Richard McClary >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:30 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> They may call it “CIFS” rather than “NTSF” >> >> -- >> richard >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Jonathan Link >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:18 AM >> >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> Do they have NTFS permissions on those things, yet? That's probably a major >> feature to be looking for... >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM, John Cook <[email protected]> wrote: >> Be mindful of the fact that while some claim AD support they don’t >> necessarily execute it well. Buffalo Terrastations come to mind….. YMMV >> >> John W. Cook >> Network Operations Manager >> Partnership For Strong Families >> 5950 NW 1st Place >> Gainesville, Fl 32607 >> Office (352) 244-1610 >> Cell (352) 215-6944 >> MCSE, MCP+I, MCTS, CompTIA A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4 >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Kennedy, Jim >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:57 AM >> >> To: '[email protected]' >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> And that it supports AD for permissions. >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of J- P >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:56 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> So it seems like more folks ar3 leaning to the NAS, any particular features >> I should be looking for? >> >> Aside from ensuring supports X number of connections? >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:49:06 -0400 >> print yes, file is the other question, if I go to NAS do I "need" windows >> file server? wouldn't the NAS take care of that? >> The NAS box should take care of shares, etc. internally. But make sure it >> has the capacity to support the number of planned connections. >> >> John M. >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of J- P >> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:19 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> >> print yes, file is the other question, if I go to NAS do I "need" windows >> file server? wouldn't the NAS take care of that? >> >> The Exchange is a guest on the 2012 hyper-v host, and there is nothing else >> on it, but in my research i see both negative and positive feedback >> regarding loading another guest- >> >> In theory being that 2012 allows/gives 2 guest 2012's with a single license, >> I could easily spin up another guest and make it a DC , DHCP, DNS , etc... >> server. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean-Paul Natola >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:07:56 -0400 >> Are you migrating the file/print to another machine? I am hoping you don't >> have anything on the Exchange server but Exchange. >> >> Jon >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:02:47 -0400 >> Already planned, VM 2003dc will become 2012 DC >> and current "all in one" 2003 dc will become 2012 DC (already have the Cals) >> >> that will give me 2 dedicated 2012 DC's >> >> Looking to stay under 5k, and I have no problems with Dell outlet r510 or >> r710 - >> >> just trying to decide NAS or Server, and of course I dont need to populate >> all the drive bays right away, heck there used to a >> 7200k sata1 mirror- >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean-Paul Natola >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:51:19 -0400 >> I really hate to do this but you will first want to start with a budget and >> then try to fit what fits into that budget. As an aside you might want to >> look at upgrading to at least 2008 R2 or better 2012, have at least 2 DC's, >> and get all the file/print off the DC when you go this route. >> >> Jon >> >> ________________________________ >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [NTSysADM] NAS or Server >> Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:43:30 -0400 >> Company background, >> >> 30 yrs old, started with 2 guys, went to to computers in the late 90's had >> about 20 users, 1 W2k server and a 120 gb SNAP- >> >> Fast forward , 2008, 30 users, sql 2005 DB (consultant at the time ) >> installs a new 1U 2003 80gb raid server for sql DB , and another 1U server >> with a mirrored 750gb drive , serving as DC/File/Print/DNS Server. >> >> Fast Forward 2013 - single site , single domain >> >> 1. ESXi hosting a VM 2008 Citrix TS, and a VM 2003 DC (no storage really >> available) >> 1. Windows 2012 Hyper-V host, SAS mirror for host OS, raid 10 2TB for guest >> OS', currently one guest, 2012 with Exchange 2013. >> >> Now there are 60 users, (still using original 2003 for File Print and DNS) >> and storage demands, as we all know are increasing exponentially, so I get >> the "we need more storage " so this begs the question, new server 2u (R710 >> maybe) , or a NAS 8 or 12 bays maybe- >> >> As an aside, majority of the users use basic office files, but there are >> about a dozen that deal with CAD Audio and Video >> I want this solution to be good for 3-5 years >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jean-Paul Natola >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or >> attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), >> confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, >> dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this >> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without >> the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information >> may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act >> of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or >> unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil >> and/or criminal penalties. >> Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really >> need to. >> >> >> >> The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is >> from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA®) >> and is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may >> contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not >> the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any >> dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, >> and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received >> this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by reply email and >> permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout >> thereof. >> >> >> Confidentiality Notice: >> This e-mail, including any attachments is the >> property of Catholic Health East and is intended >> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). >> It may contain information that is privileged and >> confidential. Any unauthorized review, use, >> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are >> not the intended recipient, please delete this message, and >> reply to the sender regarding the error in a separate email. >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or >> attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), >> confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, >> dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this >> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without >> the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information >> may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act >> of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or >> unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil >> and/or criminal penalties. >> Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really >> need to. >> >> >> >> Confidentiality Notice: >> This e-mail, including any attachments is the >> property of Catholic Health East and is intended >> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). >> It may contain information that is privileged and >> confidential. Any unauthorized review, use, >> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are >> not the intended recipient, please delete this message, and >> reply to the sender regarding the error in a separate email. >> >> >> >> Confidentiality Notice: >> This e-mail, including any attachments is the >> property of Catholic Health East and is intended >> for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). >> It may contain information that is privileged and >> confidential. Any unauthorized review, use, >> disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are >> not the intended recipient, please delete this message, and >> reply to the sender regarding the error in a separate email. >> >> >> >> >> >
