# Musings Published articles for Musings. This is one page of public article previews, not the complete archive. Follow Next page to continue. Summaries are not the original full articles. ## Debugging my new network, when 10 Gigabit Ethernet Runs at 300 Megabits DevFeed: [Debugging my new network, when 10 Gigabit Ethernet Runs at 300 Megabits]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Published: 2026-08-27T15:25:48Z Content type: article Language: en Sources: [Scott Hanselman]() Topics: [Homelab](), [debugging](), [UniFi UNAS Pro](), [intel](), [Windows](), [NVMe]() Tags: [debugging](), [homelab](), [intel](), [musings](), [nvme](), [smb](), [ssd](), [storage](), [unifi-unas-pro](), [windows]() ### AI overview A Windows desktop connected to a 10GbE homelab network was limited to roughly 100-200 megabits per second despite 10-gigabit link indications. Direct testing traced the problem to the Windows/NIC path: increasing the Intel E610 driver's receive buffers eliminated discarded packets and improved receive throughput, while disabling IPv4 Large Send Offload V2 raised transmit throughput to 7.03 Gbit/sec. ### Source excerpt I've been moving my home storage over to a UniFi UNAS Pro 8 as part of a larger homelab moderization. My main IRONHEART (the ultimate PC from a few years back) desktop now has an Intel E610-XT2 10GbE card, the NAS is on 10GbE, and there's a Minisforum MS-01 miniPC on the same network with a 10GbE SFP+ connection running Immich and Portainer and a few other things. Everything says 10 gigabit. Windows says 10 gigabit. UniFi says 10 gigabit. SMB copies are using the correct NIC but my file copies are running at around 100 to 200 megabits per second which is sad making. Naturally, I blamed the NAS, and the spinning rust within. The UNAS has six 16 TB spinning disks in RAID 6 and a pair of NVMe SSDs being used as cache. I'm also running Immich on the MS-01, with its photo library living on the UNAS, so there are lots of thumbnails, metadata reads, and little background writes happening. All seem like reasonable suspects. I switched the UNAS SSD cache from read-write to read-only. No meaningful difference. I stopped Immich completely. No difference. I looked at iostat; the disks weren't saturated. We looked at SMB signing and Windows Defender network scanning. Still slow. Then I stopped testing the NAS and ran iperf3 directly between the Windows desktop and the MS-01: iperf3 -c 192.168.1.222 -P 4 133 Mbit/sec Oops. The reverse test was better, but still wrong: iperf3 -c 192.168.1.222 -P 4 -R 1.33 Gbit/sec That's weird. Now the disks, SMB, Immich, RAID, and the NAS itself were completely out of the equation. This was a Windows/NIC problem and it's weirdly asymmetrical. Looking at the Intel adapter statistics shows me... Get-NetAdapterStatistics -Name "Ethernet - 10 Gig Intel" There were nearly a million ReceivedDiscardedPackets. During one ten-second iperf3 test, the counter increased by another 268. Why? The E610 driver had its receive buffers at the default 512, although it supported up to 4096. I increased them. I love an increased buffer. Set-NetAdapterAdvancedProperty ## Migrating a Synology NAS to a UniFi UNAS Pro 8 with Robocopy and SMB Multichannel DevFeed: [Migrating a Synology NAS to a UniFi UNAS Pro 8 with Robocopy and SMB Multichannel]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Published: 2026-08-23T19:23:42Z Content type: tutorial Language: en Sources: [Scott Hanselman]() Topics: [migration](), [UniFi UNAS Pro](), [Synology](), [Filesystems](), [Windows](), [Network]() Tags: [files](), [filesystem](), [migration](), [multichannel](), [musings](), [nas](), [network](), [performance](), [smb](), [synology](), [synology-nas](), [unas](), [unifi](), [unifi-unas](), [unifi-unas-pro](), [windows]() ### AI overview A personal technical account of migrating files from a Synology NAS to a Ubiquiti UniFi UNAS Pro 8. It describes SMB-based copying with Windows and Robocopy, file-transfer errors, Windows error 665, and troubleshooting that isolates a filesystem limitation on the UNAS. ### Source excerpt I've had a Synology NAS for a very long time, and recently I started moving its contents to a new Ubiquiti UniFi UNAS Pro 8. This seemed like it ought to be a fairly boring operation. Both devices speak SMB, I have a fast network (recently upgraded to 10 gigabit internally), and Windows has had tools for copying files reliably between machines for decades. Naturally, it turned into a whole evening of learning things I thought I already knew, which is why I started a blog lol. There was a nice bit of history here for me because back in 2007 (good lord!) I wrote a post called "XCopy considered harmful - Robocopy or XXCopy or SyncBack." My argument at the time was basically that once you are moving enough files, Explorer stops being the move and Robocopy starts looking pretty good. I even used /Z, Robocopy's restartable mode, because being able to resume a partially transferred file was useful on unreliable connections. Almost twenty years later, /Z turned out to be one of the most important things I needed to remove because it made everything hella slow. The migration The basic job was straightforward. I had shares on the Synology such as: \\server\music and matching shares on the UNAS: \\UNAS-Pro-8\music I initially used Explorer, mostly because it was there and because sometimes the easy thing really is the easy thing. That lasted until Explorer started producing errors on individual files: The requested operation could not be completed due to a file system limitation My first thought was filenames. NAS migrations are full of opportunities to discover that one filesystem is more permissive than another, and there were filenames with parentheses and other punctuation in them. Then this failed: \\server\music\Athlete\Tourist\05 Wires.m4p There is nothing especially exotic about 05 Wires.m4p, so I moved over to Robocopy to get a little more information. It consistently got to 92% and returned Windows error 665: 92% New File 4.3 m 05 Wires.m4p ERROR 665 (0x00000299) Cop ## AI-Augmented Development Does Not Eliminate the Craft of Software DevFeed: [AI-Augmented Development Does Not Eliminate the Craft of Software]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Scott Hanselman Published: 2026-02-09T05:50:59Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Scott Hanselman]() Topics: [coding](), [Development](), [Software](), [Artificial Intelligence]() Tags: [ai](), [coding](), [development](), [musings](), [software](), [syntax]() ### AI overview The author argues that AI-augmented development may produce impressive results and change how developers work, but software remains difficult and still requires craftsmanship, good judgment, and the ability to build cohesive systems. ### Source excerpt The Japanese are really good at woodworking. And I love watching the Yankee workshop, my dad makes Native American bows and arrows completely from scratch in his workshop with trees that he finds. This is all different from the stuff you get at IKEA, but I've been coding now for money for 35 years and systems are still complicated, computers still do dumb stuff, humans still do dumb stuff, this is just like the move from assembler to C, like the introduction of syntax highlighting, the introduction of intellisense, and the copy paste directly into production shift when stack overflow happened. There is value in good taste, there is value in craftsmanship, and there is value in human judgment. The furniture might be differently designed, but we're still interior designers and putting together a cohesive system is non-trivial. Don't let them gaslight you with one shot Minecraft clones and one shot C compilers. Software is still hard, it's just that you're no longer I/O bound with the speed of your fingertips. I think that there will be lots of work for us cleaning up after the slop, but if you know what you're doing AI augmented development is going to get you some amazing results and I am enjoying learning a ton during this momentous era shift - but the craft still exists. © 2025 Scott Hanselman. All rights reserved. ## The danger of glamourizing one shots DevFeed: [The danger of glamourizing one shots]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Author: Scott Hanselman Published: 2026-02-04T05:53:00Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Scott Hanselman]() Topics: [Artificial Intelligence](), [coding](), [sdlc](), [context]() Tags: [ai](), [coding](), [context](), [musings](), [programming](), [sdlc]() ### AI overview This commentary argues that AI-augmented coding should not be judged by impressive one-shot demonstrations such as generating a game from a familiar name. Those prompts conceal substantial semantic guidance, while more specific goals, stable systems, software development practices, historical context, and sound judgment remain important. ### Source excerpt People should not be judging AI-augmented coding by "1 shots." If someone told you that their model did a "one shot of Minecraft" and they're impressed by that, you need to consider how much semantic heavy lifting the word "Minecraft" is doing in that prompt. Ask them to one shot Minecraft without using the word Minecraft. It's not trivial to one shot something unique, because programming is the art of making the ambiguous incredibly specific through sculpting. AI sculpting is less about vibes and more about finding the specificity you want and keeping the system stable through changes. Good SDLC practices still matter, historical context still matters, and knowing how things work matters, shout out to Grady Booch. It's a cool party trick to one shot Mario Brothers or space invaders, but then you'll end up with the most mid version of both. Literally mid. You'll get the statistical fat part of the Bell curve version of these mythical games. You're telling the model to close its eyes and draw the face of these games from memory. As high-level programming cedes way to the prose compiler, making your goals and specs well understood to the ambiguity loop and showing good judgment is going to matter more than ever. Consider all of your words and make sure that certain words aren't carrying all the semantic load, hidden or otherwise. © 2025 Scott Hanselman. All rights reserved. ## Defining "Operations" DevFeed: [Defining "Operations"]() Original publisher: [Read original article]() Published: 2012-10-15T15:18:25Z Content type: opinion Language: en Sources: [Signs of Triviality]() Topics: [DevOps]() Tags: [devops](), [musings]() ### AI overview An opinion piece examining the meanings and distinctions among system administration, operations, Ops, and DevOps. ### Source excerpt Musings on the meaning of "System Administration" versus "Operations" versus "Ops" and "DevOps"