Friday, February 22



So exactly how long has my network switch been subtly broken?

I've been a bit down on the cheap LaCie NASes all this time because they just don't deliver the claimed performance.  At least, not on RAID-5.

LaCie claim 70MB/s.  I only ever got around 20MB/s.

Until I swapped out my network switch just now.  Bang.  70MB/s instantly.  On RAID-5.  The NAS was never the problem.

The new switch is the exact same model as the old one, except, apparently, that it's not horribly broken.

Now I'm just a bit down on the cheap LaCie NASes because the two new ones I bought (without disks) just plain don't work.  They power up and get an IP address (I can see them on the DHCP server), and I can ping them, but they don't do anything else.  You can't even turn them off - the power switch has no effect.  Behaviour is identical on both devices, whether they're configured with just one disk, a full five, or none at all.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 04:25 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

1 So, note to self, don't dabble with the LaCies either.

(We went through Freedom9s and Iomegas and DLinks and Drobos (NOT CHEAP) before settling on the QNAPs. WE LOVE QNAP.)

Posted by: GreyDuck at Saturday, February 23 2013 12:51 AM (xbP2x)


Aside:  RAID-5?  Stinky, especially for writes.  (Anecdote:  years ago, I was contracting for a company who contacted their database vendor for some performance tips.  The vendor came in, looked around, and said "call us back when you're off RAID 5."  Another anecdote:  I once moved the database off a RAID 5 SAN onto a pair of mirrored drives that lived in the server.  Nobody ever noticed, performance-wise.  In both cases, these were databases with a lot of updates.)

I'd assume Pixy knows this, but for everyone else who uses, for example, transactional databases with a lot of I/O, ignore the hardware vendors.  You don't want RAID 5.

Posted by: rick c at Saturday, February 23 2013 02:12 AM (A9FNw)

3 That could have been me on the other end of that call. wink  I was application support rather than database support, but we all said the same thing: Get off RAID-5 before you talk to us, and yes, the hardware vendors are lying to you.

For file storage, though, RAID-5 it's fine.  And for databases on SSD, it's probably fine too, because SSDs are so much faster than disk on random writes that it doesn't matter unless you're at the far, far end of the curve.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Saturday, February 23 2013 05:55 PM (PiXy!)


Pixy, I need an application of the ban hammer, please.

My spammer just returned. I tagged his most recent spam as "hide" so you could look at it. Here's what I could determine about him:

Name: muhammadali


home page:

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Sunday, February 24 2013 12:52 AM (+rSRq)


I saw that you'd done a lot of work (including hammering my spammer, thank you ) and this morning there seemed to be no new spam. It was like a headache being gone.

But now I see they're back again. It is a pity...

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Monday, February 25 2013 04:51 AM (+rSRq)

6 Yeah, I think there's a bug somewhere that's letting spammers through.  I'll be taking a look at that later today.  I may also be implementing a simple captcha for unregistered users.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at Monday, February 25 2013 09:31 AM (PiXy!)

7 I think a captcha may be the only solution. Go for it!

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at Tuesday, February 26 2013 07:37 AM (+rSRq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
48kb generated in CPU 0.0168, elapsed 0.1091 seconds.
56 queries taking 0.0982 seconds, 344 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.