* Posts by madsenandersc

6 posts • joined 22 Jan 2010

Is it a NAS? Is it a SAN? No. It's Synology's Rackstation 'NASSAN'


We are running mission critical systems via iSCSI on both Dell MD3000i (15K SAS) and Synology RS3412xs+ (one 7.2K SATA, one SSD) and have done so for a while now.

The MD3000i is definitely picky when it comes to how the network interfaces are connected but after a firmware upgrade (and a small performance test where the Dell tech managed to wipe all volumes from the live production SAN) we have experienced nothing but rock solid, 210 MB/s performance from it and in general I trust our most valuable data to it.

The Synology has been another story altogether: Up to version 4.3-3776 Update 1 the iSCSI system was pure crap, especially on the SATA version - it would crash and reboot almost daily, breaking connectivity to all the VM disks and sometimes the reboot would take so long that the virtual disks ended up being inaccessible. After the firmware upgrade to 4.3-3776 Update 1 both Synolgy SAN devices have been rock solid and performing flawlessly. As with the Dell MD3000i, performance is limited by the network, not the actual device.

Synology support was reasonably responsive but definitely not at the same level as Dell. We have not had any hardware issues so far so I can't really comment on their hardware support, but I think it is safe to say that although the xs series has a more enterprise-class support with on-site spare part delivery (hough still no on-site service as such), the hardware support is no match for the one delivered by Dell.

Bottom line: The fact that we have sufficient in-house knowledge to handle things on our own makes the Synology a good business case for us since performance and reliability now matches the Dell solutions, but for someone relying on external support, things may be quite different and a more directly supported solution (phone support) may provide a better business case.

Did genetically modified food cause giant tumours in rats?


Re: Need to independently study GM vs. "Roundup"

Just to clear up a misconception in the comment above: The GM crops have no weedkiller in them and has not been treated with anything before leaving the lab. The GM crop can tolerate treatment with Roundup better than non-GM crops so it is possible to use higher doses of Roundup or treat the fields more often while not harming the crop.

If you are talking about any residual Roundup in the seeds from treatment of the crop that produced the seeds, I think it is proven that these levels are extremely low and with no measurable residual content in the next generation of crops.

Any testing with a treated and a non-treated group of crops is therefore valid, at least as far as the levels of Roundup in the harvested crop goes.

Drobo brings RAID, battery backup to the desktop - and the hand


Re: Proprietary RAID

Well, the difference is that you don't even need to take out two of the drives in order to bork the data on the Drobo, you just wait for it to brick itself...

Don't believe me? - don't have to, hear it from two of the higher profile users instead:

Scott Kelby:


Drew Gardner:


Both are professional photographers who initially were very happy about their Drobo and ended up dropping them in a very public way.

The idea behind Drobo is nice but the proprietary nature of their RAID is a real showstopper when it goes kerplonk.

Microsoft takes on tablets with keyboard-equipped Surface


Re: ARMvsIntel Win 8

iPad runs iOS 5

Mac runs Mac OSX

ARM-based tablets runs Windows 8 RT

Intel-based tablets runs Windows 8 Pro

You see the difference? - because I'm pretty sure that the consumer can see the difference between "iOS 5" and "Mac OSX", but I fear that the difference between "Windows 8 RT" and "Windows 8 Pro" is a lot less significant, especially considering that there is a number of other Windows 8 versions that will run all Windows applications just fine.

FreeNAS 8.0 hits the street


It's hard to please everyone.

Personally I hate the fact that my storage units are running a boatload of other services that may interfere with the basic storage service, so in my book the new version is a good thing. Each to their own, I guess.

Firefox 3.6 goes live and final


Well, there is RAM usage, and then there is RAM usage.

There is a major difference between using RAM by the application itself and by using it for a cache. The first type of usage may be problematic in a scenario where there is a shortage of available RAM, while the second type (cache) simply will reduce itself to make room whenever requested to by the OS.

Provided that the application and the cache management is well-behaved of course, but that goes for any application.


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019