Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«62 »
  • Post
  • Reply
Digital_Jesus
Feb 10, 2011



Just lol if you don't run your smb off all-flash VDI and enterprise directaccess.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

Alright so our 35 man business has no sys admin or really even an IT guy. We've gotten by (against my constant requests for an IT employee) but just contracting big things out from time to time and then several of us just handling help desk poo poo. It's the worst system.

Anyway we have 2 main switches, Dell Powerconnect 2824. Everything works fine but we just added a new QNAP NAS and it's got four ethernet ports. I'd like to trunk them together for better/faster access for our designers (who currently connect to an old rear end QNAP NAS via single gigabit ethernet).

Problem is our switches are basically full up. So I'm guessing the easiest thing is just to add a new one. They're cheap as poo poo now. Looks like the 2824 are the smallest version with a link port. So I'm guessing I should grab one of those and just use the link ports to link it up and then plug the 4 QNAP connections directly into that?

redeyes
Sep 14, 2002
I LOVE THE WHITE STRIPES!

Sounds like you might want to get a 10Gbe switch, maybe connect the high bandwidth stuff to it. I bet the Qnap can get a 10Gbe interface card as well.

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

redeyes posted:

Sounds like you might want to get a 10Gbe switch, maybe connect the high bandwidth stuff to it. I bet the Qnap can get a 10Gbe interface card as well.

Actually looked at that early on. We use 10Gbe for all of our video editing stuff and it's a loving dream. But that's all PC stuff. The designers all work on Macs and the cost to get them 10Gbe equipped (and then rewiring all of their cable runs) is way too much at this juncture (goddamn motherfucking iMacs I swear to god). So we're just looking to get them a little bit of speed boost in the existing environment.

pixaal
Jan 8, 2004

All ice cream is now for all beings, no matter how many legs.

Toilet Rascal

You go at the speed of the slowest device, so if they are on 100Mbit it doesn't matter if you trunk a bunch of ports you are still getting 100Mbit per mac. You can use a single 10Gbit to serve 10 different macs with 1Gbit connections just fine.

If you are thinking of getting the macs 10Gbit in the near future you can install the switches now and upgrade the rest later you'll still see improvements.

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

pixaal posted:

You go at the speed of the slowest device, so if they are on 100Mbit it doesn't matter if you trunk a bunch of ports you are still getting 100Mbit per mac. You can use a single 10Gbit to serve 10 different macs with 1Gbit connections just fine.

If you are thinking of getting the macs 10Gbit in the near future you can install the switches now and upgrade the rest later you'll still see improvements.

We won't be going 10Gbe on the macs anytime at all in the near future so that's no worry.

They're all gigabit macs on gigabit lines.

My concern isn't the speed per individual mac necessarily, but rather that they all are accessing a server with a single line and bottlenecking it. So trunking the 4 lines will help disperse the load and serve the macs faster.

Is that incorrect? (It may very well be since I'm not a sysadmin, I just figured that about 8 macs trying to access a single server with a single gigabit connection might bottleneck it).

BonoMan fucked around with this message at Mar 20, 2019 around 15:37

Agrikk
Oct 17, 2003

Do not ingest.

redeyes posted:

I like to give people a call on the phone so I don't have to stare at their face the whole time I am not paying attention.

Especially nowadays where the webcam on modern laptops is down low near the hinge. No really, I really enjoy staring up your nostrils.

Eikre
May 2, 2009


Agrikk posted:

I was responding to Schadenbonerís post about a customer upgrading their pipe size and not expecting any issuers to come up.

But yeah, before I had Comcast Business they flipped me all kinds of grief because of static VPN endpoints, web pages, API endpoints, etc originating from my end.

Ultimately I was forced to get business and a set of static IP addresses before they shut up about it.

Nowadays they simply gently caress up over and over and over again because I have both a business account (Internet and phone) and a residential account (tv) registered to the same address.

The amount of times Iíve called in with an Xfinity problem to be told the problem is that I donít have internet access is legion. ďSir, according to this account you donít have intetnet, so THERE CAN BE NO POSSIBLE WAY you could have internet at that address.Ē

Stupid idea that maybe you've already tried: Record your business address at $HOMEADDRESS Suite A, and your domestic address as $HOMEADDRESS Suite B. Maybe their lovely-rear end database has trouble with data intersections in the postal address, but they must have mitigated the issue for people who live in an apartment building, right?

...Right??????

The Fool
Oct 16, 2003



Eikre posted:

Stupid idea that maybe you've already tried: Record your business address at $HOMEADDRESS Suite A, and your domestic address as $HOMEADDRESS Suite B. Maybe their lovely-rear end database has trouble with data intersections in the postal address, but they must have mitigated the issue for people who live in an apartment building, right?

...Right??????

If he does this you know at some point a tech is going to come out to service an issue in Suite B, claim it doesn't exist, then all of the service to that address will get shut down.

Digital_Jesus
Feb 10, 2011



BonoMan posted:

We won't be going 10Gbe on the macs anytime at all in the near future so that's no worry.

They're all gigabit macs on gigabit lines.

My concern isn't the speed per individual mac necessarily, but rather that they all are accessing a server with a single line and bottlenecking it. So trunking the 4 lines will help disperse the load and serve the macs faster.

Is that incorrect? (It may very well be since I'm not a sysadmin, I just figured that about 8 macs trying to access a single server with a single gigabit connection might bottleneck it).

The reality is you will exceed the IO capability of that qnaps disk long before you will saturate 1Gbps worth of traffic off 8 iMacs randomly accessing data (Unless you bought SSDs then it depends on what type of file system you're supporting, file sizes they're working with, etc).

Calculating storage network bandwidth requirements is more in-depth than "Computer Gigabit, Storage Gigabit, Have Gigabit traffic."

E: That sounded snarky. Isn't meant to be. Generally just trying to tell you you're gonna be just fine plugging in one port, maybe two for "Oops it broke" or whatever. There's no reason to buy a whole separate switch, especially not 10Gb + the add-ins for the qnap just to feed a couple of iMacs.

E2: Also please consider that if you aren't going to lag your new switch to your existing infrastructure, your switch to switch uplink is still capped at 1Gbps.

Digital_Jesus fucked around with this message at Mar 22, 2019 around 04:35

Eikre
May 2, 2009


The Fool posted:

If he does this you know at some point a tech is going to come out to service an issue in Suite B, claim it doesn't exist, then all of the service to that address will get shut down.

Put a little sign on your front door that says suite A with a footnote that suite B is at the rear, and just admit the business service guys through the back door. If they're too stupid to determine that two accounts can service one address, then by the same principle, they'll never be able to figure out that the two doors lead to the same space, so it'll never be an issue!

Potato Salad
Oct 23, 2014

Nobody Cares



Tortured By Flan

Eikre posted:

Put a little sign on your front door that says suite A with a footnote that suite B is at the rear, and just admit the business service guys through the back door. If they're too stupid to determine that two accounts can service one address, then by the same principle, they'll never be able to figure out that the two doors lead to the same space, so it'll never be an issue!

This is also a good way to get compensation for doing two jobs at once -- install a second door and desk in your office

"Jill B Goon: Security Operations"
"Jill B Goon: Storage Administrator"

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

Digital_Jesus posted:

The reality is you will exceed the IO capability of that qnaps disk long before you will saturate 1Gbps worth of traffic off 8 iMacs randomly accessing data (Unless you bought SSDs then it depends on what type of file system you're supporting, file sizes they're working with, etc).

Calculating storage network bandwidth requirements is more in-depth than "Computer Gigabit, Storage Gigabit, Have Gigabit traffic."

E: That sounded snarky. Isn't meant to be. Generally just trying to tell you you're gonna be just fine plugging in one port, maybe two for "Oops it broke" or whatever. There's no reason to buy a whole separate switch, especially not 10Gb + the add-ins for the qnap just to feed a couple of iMacs.

E2: Also please consider that if you aren't going to lag your new switch to your existing infrastructure, your switch to switch uplink is still capped at 1Gbps.

It wasn't snarky don't worry!

And yeah I'm not doing 10Gbe (which I think I mentioned later on) because it's too expensive... not just for the switch but getting iMac the adapters and then runnin' the cable. F that.

I was only ever looking at spending $50 on an extra Powerconnect 2824 switch (which is the lowest model with the SFP port to connect the switches).

However I didn't even think about the disk I/O (obviously I'm not a sys admin). It's this NAS: https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/ts-877
with Seagate Ironwolf Pro 7200rpm disks in it and I was going to put a couple of 256gig SSDs we have laying around in there too.

pixaal
Jan 8, 2004

All ice cream is now for all beings, no matter how many legs.

Toilet Rascal

BonoMan posted:

It wasn't snarky don't worry!

And yeah I'm not doing 10Gbe (which I think I mentioned later on) because it's too expensive... not just for the switch but getting iMac the adapters and then runnin' the cable. F that.

I was only ever looking at spending $50 on an extra Powerconnect 2824 switch (which is the lowest model with the SFP port to connect the switches).

However I didn't even think about the disk I/O (obviously I'm not a sys admin). It's this NAS: https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/ts-877
with Seagate Ironwolf Pro 7200rpm disks in it and I was going to put a couple of 256gig SSDs we have laying around in there too.

You should never mix disk types in a single RAID volume. You might be able to set up an SSD cache but that wont help if they are constantly changing what files they access since it can't act as a cache.

What happens is the RAID goes at the speed of the slowest drive and I've been told but never bothered to confirm that "bad things" happen when you mix 5400 and 7200RPM drives. A RAID is also equal to the smallest drive size times the number of disks (and there's usually a reduction in size because of mirrors or parity, which you DO want).

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

pixaal posted:

You should never mix disk types in a single RAID volume. You might be able to set up an SSD cache but that wont help if they are constantly changing what files they access since it can't act as a cache.

What happens is the RAID goes at the speed of the slowest drive and I've been told but never bothered to confirm that "bad things" happen when you mix 5400 and 7200RPM drives. A RAID is also equal to the smallest drive size times the number of disks (and there's usually a reduction in size because of mirrors or parity, which you DO want).

I'm not mixing anything - those SSDs are only for cache purposes - not for mixing in the general volume. The general storage volume is just 6 of those same Seagate drives.

Digital_Jesus
Feb 10, 2011



Yeah, based off the rest of your information I'm still going to go with "You're gonna crush the NAS before the network pipe".

If its cheap and you want to do it for fun and the experience of it, go wild, but I don't know that I'd try to justify it with performance gains. I'm not 100% up-to-date (E2: Im actually 0% up-to-date because I can't remember the last time I even touched qnap storage) on how QNAP is doing SSD based read/write caching these days, but I wouldn't hold my breath that its going to make a huge difference.

E: I decided to take a look at one of my customers Equallogic setups (please dont buy equallogic storage, ty) for bandwidth usage since it's the closest thing I have comparatively. It's a R1+0 array of 10k drives and they're using it for hypervisor datastores. The disk is trying to keep up with read/write load, and the entire array is using less than 1Gbps of its 10Gbps uplink on average.

Anecdotal as I don't know your actual workload over there (and block data transfer vs. file data, etc.), but maybe adds some perspective for you. In almost every case where storage connectivity is concerned, the disk will stop providing available throughput before the network connectivity will.

Digital_Jesus fucked around with this message at Mar 22, 2019 around 17:31

pixaal
Jan 8, 2004

All ice cream is now for all beings, no matter how many legs.

Toilet Rascal

What RAID level are you in?

I'm going to go with RAID10, which is the fastest with parity, though most places will use RAID6 even when they need performance. If it's on RAID0 you lose 1 drive you lose everything. That will happen, so if you are on 0 you need to replace that quick and don't bother to calculate speed.

So I'm using this very accurate (it's not) calculator https://wintelguy.com/raidperf.pl

Using 100MB/s which is faster than the sequential read rating on the recommended settings for 7200 you only get 400MB/s for RAID10, you probably have RAID6, which is only 175MB/s

I'm mostly doing this to demonstrate how important your RAID levels is. This calculator is theoretical, and makes a ton of assumptions. It should be accurate enough for comparing "Manufacturer claims this is the throughput at this RAID level" vs "Other manufacturer at different RAID level".

An 8 drive RAID10 will be the same size as that 6 drive RAID6 and even faster than the 6 drive RAID10 because the bigger it gets the faster 10 gets. (It's up to 533MB/s). Again this is sequential and no where close to real world performance, random read / write is about 1/3 the speed but we don't even know if the MB/s represents your drives.

Again do not use a calculator like this if you have a hard requirement on throughput.

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

Thanks for all the info guys - good stuff.

Def was never going to do RAID 0. The old storage is RAID 5 and I think our VideoStorage (I didn't set it up) is either 6 or 10 - no idea. Looks like I'll just keep with a single pipe! Makes it easy on me!

Thanatosian
Apr 16, 2013

Angrier, Bitterer Man


Grimey Drawer

I feel like in this day and age of cheap storage, I feel like RAID 5 is largely obsolete; I cannot imagine a set of data you care enough about to want to RAID, but don't care enough about to spend more money than RAID 5 requires.

BonoMan
Feb 20, 2002


Jade Ear Joe

Thanatosian posted:

I feel like in this day and age of cheap storage, I feel like RAID 5 is largely obsolete; I cannot imagine a set of data you care enough about to want to RAID, but don't care enough about to spend more money than RAID 5 requires.

It was setup that way 10 years ago so I dunno? Just stating what it is.

edit: But in terms of general spending... you're talking about a company that lives and dies by its data *but won't hire a sys admin much less even an IT help desk person.* I stopped trying to make sense of that a long time ago.

BonoMan fucked around with this message at Mar 22, 2019 around 21:32

Digital_Jesus
Feb 10, 2011



RAID5 still has plenty of life in it as it isn't nearly as space-wasteful as R1+0, is perfectly suited to average IO loads from anything that isn't database intensive, and write caching in most enterprise level storage has been sufficient to cover the performance deficit for quite some time now. On top of that in addition to the parity drives in the raid set every single modern enterprise storage appliance keeps hot-spares on deck per X number of like disks in an array. The chance of data loss due to drive failure on an R5 is pretty much non-relevant.

R5 is usually the correct choice for hosting your guest OS disks, average-load operations for application servers, DFS rollouts, etc.
R6 is for LTS.
R1+0 is for either performance purposes where you can justify the configuration over R5 or you have a real budget and can afford to just spend the extra $$$$ on the optimal configuration.

Storage being cheap is also perspective.
I consider $100,000 - 150,000 to be a "cheap" unit. For probably 95% of the people in this thread that is more money than they will spend on their entire network as a whole during their tenure.
For some people a $150 3TB USB 3.0 drive from Best Buy is "cheap", and I've met business owners who think that is too expensive for this computer stuff.

E: Also outside the scope of this thread for most of its tenants but there is such a thing as storage with multiple arrays :P
E2: I say "Enterprise" storage but I consider that based on feature set, not cost. You can get entry-level enterprise storage arrays for $40,000-$50,000 if you dont need a ton of up front space. Not outside the realm of purchase for a good chunk of SMBs.

Digital_Jesus fucked around with this message at Mar 22, 2019 around 23:06

NevergirlsOFFICIAL
Apr 24, 2004



I Inherited A Network

hosted mitel situation that has had qos issues since forever. there were no qos controls here at all. I put some prioritization on the edge switch, helped a little but still issues. my next is to put qos on the core switch. what else do I need to look at? I'm not a networking guy

Thanks Ants
May 21, 2004

Bless You Ants, Blants



Fun Shoe

How have you determined that you have QoS issues?

Digital_Jesus
Feb 10, 2011



Are your voice and data separate broadcast domains as well?

NevergirlsOFFICIAL
Apr 24, 2004



Thanks Ants posted:

How have you determined that you have QoS issues?

people are getting five seconds of silence, stutters on calls

NevergirlsOFFICIAL
Apr 24, 2004



Digital_Jesus posted:

Are your voice and data separate broadcast domains as well?

I do not know

Thanks Ants
May 21, 2004

Bless You Ants, Blants



Fun Shoe

NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:

people are getting five seconds of silence, stutters on calls

Are you completely hammering your LAN? What does your link utilisation look like?

Do internal calls and calls between phones on the same switch also have problems, or is it just external calls?

NevergirlsOFFICIAL
Apr 24, 2004



Thanks Ants posted:

Are you completely hammering your LAN? What does your link utilisation look like?

Do internal calls and calls between phones on the same switch also have problems, or is it just external calls?

LAN does not look hammered. Problems are with internal calls too. However since itís a hosted pbx I donít know if internal voice traffic goes out and back in?

pixaal
Jan 8, 2004

All ice cream is now for all beings, no matter how many legs.

Toilet Rascal

NevergirlsOFFICIAL posted:

LAN does not look hammered. Problems are with internal calls too. However since itís a hosted pbx I donít know if internal voice traffic goes out and back in?

By hosted do you mean cloud or on prem?

If it's their cloud solution we just ditched Mitel Cloud because they sent techs out 3 times each time they said the network was fine and everything should work then sent us a bill for the tech. It was a battle each time to get it removed since the tech admitted fault each time. We were having basically the same issues. If it helps they are using ShoreTel for their cloud since they bought ShoreTel.

NevergirlsOFFICIAL
Apr 24, 2004



mitel cloud

pixaal
Jan 8, 2004

All ice cream is now for all beings, no matter how many legs.

Toilet Rascal

Par for course from my experience. We had remote users all drop at the same time as our office and somehow it was still our networks fault apparently even though none of the calls went back to our office.

With this cloud solution all calls are out of office calls it leaves the building and comes back so internal calls will have the same issues. Switched to Ring Central and haven't had issues.

We had their cloud solution for several years, we stopped even logging the problems because they were so numerous with zero fixes and constantly blaming our network which they themselves had proven wasn't the problem.

Make sure you get our early, they have a 6 month notice requirement to cancel.

Internet Explorer
Jun 1, 2005



Oven Wrangler

If your ISP isn't respecting QoS flags to the Mitel cloud and you're not completely hammering your LAN or firewall, then QoS likely isn't going to help.

Agrikk
Oct 17, 2003

Do not ingest.

BonoMan posted:

good stuff

If you are interested in looking at the performance of 10g in your environment, building a lab out of eBay is always an option if you have $500-600 in your budget.

For this very purpose I bought a Force10 fiber switch, four Mellanox ConnectX-2 HBAs and eight 10g transceivers for my lab. It was fun to mess around with in my ESX environment with a stretched vSAN and I learned a lot.

That said, I do not recommend using any eBay gear in a production environment because there is no guarantee on the reliability of the gear and no warranty and no support.

But itís cheap way to get access to technology (albeit five year old technology) for proof-of-concept and learning potential.

Thanks Ants
May 21, 2004

Bless You Ants, Blants



Fun Shoe


Get a broadband line installed, plug a couple of phones into it, use it for nothing else. If the performance is still poo poo then youíve saved yourself a lot of time checking your network over.

wolrah
May 8, 2006
what?


I have one customer using Mitel Cloud who just has us maintaining the PBX and they are hilariously bad. Like their systems just stop accepting traffic from the customer site about once a week. It's terrible, but the customer is under contract and doesn't want to fight it for whatever reason. Sample size of one and all, plus they are technically my competitor, but that's not good.

I've worked in VoIP for soon to be 14 years and I have had LAN-side QoS be necessary exactly once, with a business that had three buildings connected over 100mbit fiber. All the servers were in building 1, as was the internet connection, so the phones had to contend with LAN file transfers and internet use even internally.

If you have access to the phones' web interfaces I can give you some ideas on how to possibly make a pair of phones support directly calling each other IP to IP, which would allow you to conclusively test LAN performance.

Digital_Jesus
Feb 10, 2011



Same-ish.

I've never had cause to implement any kind of internal QoS for voice traffic. If your voice and data are separated appropriately and your uplinks aren't archaic it shouldn't be an issue. Especially not with the user/phone counts most SMBs will have on site.

You may want to research the phone model and as suggested above see if the phones support peer to peer direct connections rather than routing internal calls through the hosted service.

Ghetto SuperCzar
Feb 19, 2005




Anyone have any fake phishing campaign recommendations? I have heard there are some open source/free services out there and I've now provided enough user training to want to implement something like that.

MF_James
May 8, 2008
I CANNOT HANDLE BEING CALLED OUT ON MY DUMBASS OPINIONS ABOUT ANTI-VIRUS AND SECURITY. I REALLY LIKE TO THINK THAT I KNOW THINGS HERE

INSTEAD I AM GOING TO WHINE ABOUT IT IN OTHER THREADS SO MY OPINION CAN FEEL VALIDATED IN AN ECHO CHAMBER I LIKE


Do you use O365?

Microsoft is rolling this out if you have the license for it: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/of...ttack-simulator

The Fool
Oct 16, 2003



Ghetto SuperCzar posted:

Anyone have any fake phishing campaign recommendations? I have heard there are some open source/free services out there and I've now provided enough user training to want to implement something like that.

https://getgophish.com/ is the best looking Open Source/Self-hosted option

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Thanks Ants
May 21, 2004

Bless You Ants, Blants



Fun Shoe

The Fool posted:

https://getgophish.com/ is the best looking Open Source/Self-hosted option

This is also what looked the most complete option when I was looking

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply
«62 »