Recent Comments

  • Reply to: The biggest plus of a modular home from Chian   1 hour 47 min ago

    Xsan is an energy based product which is no doubt the best of all, i have never seen such an amazing content like this. We are delivering essaycenter custom essay to online users this year which i think is the best way of motivating online users and secondly price mentioned is very low as compared to online users.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   3 days 18 hours ago

    Good points, Abstractrude. I agree that HP's Z series looks like the long term solution. Windows has improved a great deal and is no longer horrible compared to the Mac OS as was the case a decade or so ago. Apple is moving in the direction that's best for their business and many of us will likely have to do the same too.

    While you're right that a third party server can work well in a Mac environment, at present you still need to buy adapters for the local machines if you need to use SAS, eSATA or 10G ethernet, DVD/CD burner or just need a few more USB ports. I love working on the cylinder Mac Pro but my desk is a mess with all the accessories. The round shape does nothing to hide all the cords. It's not a pretty sight.

    Thunderbolt is great but I'd like to see a more flexible Mac Pro concept.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   1 week 1 day ago

    I know its hard to change but Apple does things differently. I think for most larger post environments windows and HP Z series computers make sense. The future is predictable and straight forward.

    OS X as a product is pretty good. There are a lot of holes, but most creative folks still like it better than Windows.

    I really like the Mac Mini MDCS but I also like third party servers and storage.

    As for the rest of the product line, what features are you missing? You can use OS X with any server you want, what function was OS X server/xserve doing for you that cannot be tasked by third party servers.

    You can use a MacMini when it makes sense. For example a Mini with PCIeFlash and a 10GbaseSR adapter will let you pump images out at 1000MB/s. 5 years ago that was 50x the cost.

    The reason the xserve existed was because there were no server options or support for Macs. I deploy mac environments with third party servers all the time, they work great. Stornext is one of those tools.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   1 week 1 day ago

    The problem is they don't make computers with multiple drives in them anymore. It is a feature less than 1% of their customers use, RAID just isn't a GUI feature anymore. I think Windows might be a better OS for you, everything is in the GUI.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   1 week 2 days ago

    Hi abstract.
    This is not a matter about the use of Terminal. As almost everybody here, i have no problem in using it, and this is just another function deprecated from the GUI. Not an issue for me, but an issue for many others.
    As i said, this is just another drop in the jar that started to fall in November 2010, when Apple officially discontinued the Xserve. That was truly a sad day for me.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   1 week 2 days ago

    Thanks for the tips, BlackF1re. I wish this was only about Terminal, Abstractrude. Unfortunately, for many of us involved in serious creative work it's looking more like we've reached the Terminus with Apple.

    All of our creative staff is on the Mac platform but our IT chief is pushing for us to move to Windows. He is right ultimately. Why should we have to buy a bunch of expensive adapters just to properly use our Mac Pro workstations? Why don't we have a real Mac server that takes PCIe cards and has dual power supplies?

    We are willing to pay a bit more for the Mac experience but at some point it just becomes excessive.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   1 week 3 days ago

    as an IT pro your complaining that apple is requiring you to use terminal ? This is the same ridiculous complaint as when people say they don't like OS X's version of apache. If you dont like it install your own.

    p.s. I have to use terminal to create LVM and raids in every version of linux I use.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   1 week 4 days ago

    Hi lafoto

    True. Apple removed from the GUI the possibility to create the extremely simple Raid 0 and 1. Honestly, this is another drop in a jar about to burst. We IT Pros are left in the dust with overpriced workstations and unsupported software.

    It's still possible to create them via Terminal:

    Type the following to obtain the list of physical drives connected to your Mac:

    diskutil list

    You'll find the drives listed like this plus the details regarding each one

    Now, let's assume the disk2 and disk3 are the disks you want to use to create a Raid

    To create a Raid 0:
    sudo diskutil appleRAID create stripe [arrayName] JHFS+ disk2 disk3

    To create a Raid 1
    sudo diskutil appleRAID create mirror [arrayName] JHFS+ disk2 disk3

    Because of this, companies like softRaid took advantage and they ask for money for such a feature.
    Honestly, i think asking for 49$ for just creating such a simple thing like a Raid 0 and 1 is stealing, while adding the Raid 5 possibility is really cool in the "pro" version, but they should let the basic function (Raid 0 and 1) for free.
    That is why i never used it.

    Hope this helped

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   1 week 5 days ago

    Thanks, Blackfire! Great idea. So Apple took away software raid in El Capitan. Apparently you can still do software raid using Terminal, however. What about SoftRaid? Have you or anyone else used this?

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   1 week 6 days ago

    Hello Lafoto

    Yes, Second cable makes a difference thanks to the multipath, capable to split the single Lun on multiple cable, But there's a way to optimise the situation even more:

    I assume your E610f is only half populated with 8 drives instead of 16?
    In this case you can create 2x Raid 5 of 4 drives each.
    During the creation of the array, set the controller Affinity so you can map the Lun 1 to controller 1, and Lun 2 to controller 2
    At this point, simply open Disk Utility on your Mac. You should see the Two Luns you just created (connecting one cable to ctrl1 and one to ctrl2). Use simply the Disk Utility to create a Raid 0 between the two Luns, and there you have a Raid 50 with Two Luns on different cables and controller to optimise performances and failover.

    If your E610f is fully populated, you can do the same creating Two array Raid 5 of 8 drives (or better, 7 drives + spare) and merge them with Disk Util on Mac, or Disk Management on Windows.
    I usually use 4 cables if i have an E610f + the Jbox expansion chassis.
    In this case i create 4x 8 drives Raid 5, mapping 2 to each controller.

    Hope this helps

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   2 weeks 22 hours ago

    Thanks for your reply. I have one array and one logical volume in the E610f. The volume is RAID 5 with 8 drives, not including the spare. So with one cable attached to one controller I was seeing about 300-325 MB/s RW. When I attached the second cable to the same controller I started seeing R/W speeds at least 380 MB/s up to 500 MB/s depending on the video format and file size used in AJA system test. So clearly a second cable makes a big difference.

    Very interesting how you are using software RAID to achieve higher speeds. What software are you using for RAID 50?

    Thanks again for your advice.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   2 weeks 1 day ago

    Thank you all for the answer, so it does works on El Capitan. This is excellent.

    To also answer you guys: No, the E610f Promise Vtrak does not support ALUA. Promise introduced this in it's x30 arrays.
    Also, i honestly never tried to boot a MacOS from a Fibre Channel Array.

    To advice you for bandwidth optimisation, i would like to understand your Array configuration.
    How many LUN do you have inside the E610f ?
    I usually create 2x Raid 5 with 7 drives + spare each, and assign them one for each controller, obtaining 2x 4Gbit bandwidth = 700 MB/s in R/W doing a Raid 50 via software, or in an San cfg.
    I only take advance of multipath for redundancy purposes, like connecting arrays and hba to multiple fibre channel switches

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   2 weeks 2 days ago

    Thanks, @BlackF1re. So it's not possible to have a Mac startup disk on the E610f?

    As far as I know you have to use LUN affinity with this model in the Mac environment. It appears this Promise unit doesn't support ALUA. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Yes, the 4-port card is probably the way to go. Cheers.

  • Reply to: Apple Fibre Channel compatibility with El Capitan   2 weeks 2 days ago


    We have some of them in SonnetTech chassis, working fine :-)

    lafoto wrote:

    I could use some more bandwith. Would it be better to move the second cable to controller 1 and not worry about failover? How much benefit would there be? I could buy a 4 port card as well.

    Thanks for your advice, Blackfire, and other experts.


    Promise did go out of their way to fork the firmware and disable boot didn't they... But ways around that :-O Does the disable/enable LUN Affinity trick not work? (I vaguely remember that.)

    If the reasonable budget is there to get a 4-port card that would be best, performance and link resiliency.

  • Reply to: El Capitan - Automount   2 weeks 2 days ago

    ^ I broke the quote tags... :-/