|
MJP posted:Quick, stupid question: a regular gigabit Ethernet connection basically negates any advantage of a SATA 6.0gb/sec HDD? Just making sure before I buy a DNS-323 and SATA 3.0 HDDs. The faster speeds, along with USB 3, are useful for stacking multiple disks or very fast SSD's on one connector. As such it would be beneficial to a minor degree for file serving whilst insignificant for raw block serving like iSCSI.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
MrMoo posted:The faster speeds, along with USB 3, are useful for stacking multiple disks or very fast SSD's on one connector. As such it would be beneficial to a minor degree for file serving whilst insignificant for raw block serving like iSCSI. Is it a palpable difference if I'm going to be playing h264 MKVs over my 802.11n LAN and over the Internet in general? Or is it such that it'd only require an extra 15-20 seconds of buffering or transferring before playing? Dunno if it helps but I'd be running two 1tb drives over RAID 1.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
what is this posted:Wow, you are literally a crazy person. Is it CP you're storing or just your facebook passwords in a text file? I also had a couple incidents almost a decade ago where I lost almost all the work I had done on some personal projects due to a hard drive crash (combined with corrupted backups!), and it's probably cost me job interviews and a lot of heartache. Personal data is still data that you may have labored over, and to rate some data as "nah, I wouldn't mind losing it with no warning one day" is a bit odd to me. If you have 10,000+ CDs that you'd have to rip, tag, and download album art for again, it's still time you have to spend to recover it all, so wouldn't it be worth spending an extra hard drive on to keep from a bunch of it getting blown up if a drive died?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
This is a repost from the home router thread, but may apply here too. 2 days ago I lost network connectivity that I tracked down to a faulty 8-Port SMC gigabit switch. So I started researching what are considered good unmanaged switches for home use. I've also had two Netgear switches go bad on me (after about a year+ usage), And Netgear's gigabit switches tend to run really hot. I vaguely recall reading that some cheapie switches work in gigabit speeds but not if all ports are are active/transferring. Through research I found that the HP ProCurve line is highly regarded as good model that works full speed on all ports. The ProCruve 1400/1800 lines were end of life in 2009 and being replaced with the 1410/1810 lines. So I figured the end of life lines might be selling cheap. I found a guy on eBay selling refurbished (supposed just pulled) 1800-24G (24 port) for $225. Pretty drat good deal. The 1400 line is unmanaged, but the 1800 line is smart (web) managed (meaning not fully managed, no console, but has a web interface for configuring VLAN and link aggregation). ProCurves are also fanless and have a lifetime warranty. Since I have a couple of motherboards in the home office with dual nics that support link aggregation (combining nics or faster connectivity) I can finally try it out on a home affordable switch. I'm guessing some of you with home built NAS setups have link aggregation support/capability. The Synology DS1010+ also supports link aggregation: http://www.synology.com/us/products/DS1010+/perf.php http://forum.synology.com/enu/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=22894 scarymonkey fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Aug 16, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 17:53
|
|
|
MJP posted:Quick, stupid question: a regular gigabit Ethernet connection basically negates any advantage of a SATA 6.0gb/sec HDD? Just making sure before I buy a DNS-323 and SATA 3.0 HDDs. Well, since with an average giabit connection, you're looking at what, 80MB/s max? I doubt you'll even saturate a 1.5g SATA drive. I stream HD videos from my QNAP NAS thats running slow green drives and they work fine. Network statistics say less then 2MB/s per stream and this model is software-raid and I can get at most 50MB/s read anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 18:44
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:I just can't get over the corruption bugs that sat there for like 4 months before someone fixed them. This is why I'm using ZFS, because gently caress having my poo poo look like it's there, but be silently hosed up. That makes it sound like MS was just twiddling their thumbs for four months and then decided to fix some minor bug. That isn't true at all. Nowadays you can pretty much view WHS like a bunch of regular NTFS formatted drives with a process running that spreads files amongst all the drives and makes copies of files to more than one drive for folders that you have duplication turned on. You can take any one of the drives out, put it in another NTFS-capable system, and read all the files on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 22:42
|
|
|
FidgetyRat posted:Well, since with an average giabit connection, you're looking at what, 80MB/s max? I doubt you'll even saturate a 1.5g SATA drive. Eh, I've got a cheap Netgear 5-port gig switch, and I can slam 100+MB/s through it no problem. Part of that might be quality of NIC and/or CPU though; I notice my CPU load spiking pretty hard when I'm doing a transfer like that, so cheapass NICs might be the biggest killer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 22:54
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:That makes it sound like MS was just twiddling their thumbs for four months and then decided to fix some minor bug. That isn't true at all. My point was that it was a known error, even if that error was a complete ratfucker to fix, it was still there. Plus after getting used to the neckbeard method of server administration, I kinda like Solaris. I can no longer ever separate myself from slocate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
Mr. Blastaway posted:Hey guys, I need some advice on a 4 bay Sans Digital enclosure I bought. Are these Sans Digital bays any good?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 15:25
|
|
|
crm posted:Are these Sans Digital bays any good? Well, it's not actually a RAID enclosure, but sure if you need a place to put some drives it works fine. That's basically all you're paying for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2010 17:53
|
|
|
what is this posted:Well, it's not actually a RAID enclosure, but sure if you need a place to put some drives it works fine. It's pretty handy if you want to clean up your desk of external enclosure bays / have a WHS box. The performance is pretty lovely, though. 20MB/s USB, 70~ MB/s eSATA.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2010 01:33
|
|
|
PopeOnARope posted:It's pretty handy if you want to clean up your desk of external enclosure bays / have a WHS box. The performance is pretty lovely, though. 20MB/s USB, 70~ MB/s eSATA. I'm not sure what you're talking about - it's full 3Gbps eSATA. If you get slower speed it's your drives or your software RAID. It's just an enclosure. It doesn't affect speed. It's possible that one of us is confused about the model we're talking about here (could be me I suppose).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
I wonder how one of those sans digital devices would work with my H340's linux install.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2010 22:48
|
|
|
what is this posted:I'm not sure what you're talking about - it's full 3Gbps eSATA. If you get slower speed it's your drives or your software RAID. The enclosure has a port multiplier chip in it. Either that or the jMicron controller I have it connected to are the source of this issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
I own 2 the sans digital ones (and a 3rd for work). They have 2 types of models you can get, with a controller that does software raid (or just pass through if your smart), and one with hardware raid built into the box. The non hardware raid one like http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816111139&cm_re=sans_digital_5_bay-_-16-111-139-_-Product works just fine and you'll get whatever speed your drives are. You will need to use the card or something that supports a port multiplier. The hardware raid one http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816111145&cm_re=sans_digital_5_bay-_-16-111-145-_-Product with raid 5 I hit 110-160 Write speed and something a little faster read. The raid is done in the enclosure so you can just use usb/esata, you don't need the included card. Also I noticed a large difference in build quality between the 5 bay and 4 bay hardware raid ones. Spend the extra money and get the 5 bay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2010 15:23
|
|
|
Do any of those sans digital do RAID6? Is there any bonus to Raid6 other than being protected if 2+ drives go down at one time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
crm posted:Do any of those sans digital do RAID6? Is there any bonus to Raid6 other than being protected if 2+ drives go down at one time? No comment on the Sans Digital device but yes, RAID6 is entirely for the extra parity data letting you survive a two-drive failure (when properly set up, this should only be in the event you have a drive failure while a rebuild completes).
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2010 17:09
|
|
|
I would really appreciate any advice that people have on how I should structure the storage for my upcoming home server build. It will mainly act as a file server, but I am also going to use it a lot for running multiple VMs. Now, it is unlikely that I'll ever have multiple VMs doing very intensive operations at the same time. However, I really want to minimise the chances of I/O bottlenecks. So currently I was thinking of the following (where each item in the list is a separate hard drive) - 1xTB for the base system (Win Server 2k8 r2), which will host the VMs as well as acting as a file server. - 1xTB for all of the VMs. - 1x1.5TB for multimedia storage and backup (expanding this in the future to multiple drives as required). Now, by separating the base OS and VMs I hope to avoid bottlenecks. However, this setup has nothing in the way of backups. Now, I don't anticipate actually ever having anything too vital on the VMs themselves, nor the multimedia hard drive (with the exception of my photo collection). Aside from this, I was just thinking of creating images of the base OS and VM hard drives, as well as backing up any important data from the multimedia drive, and storing all of this on an external hard drive (with scheduled weekly/nightly backups depending on how often the data changes or how sensitive it is). I'm just not sure if there is a blaringly obvious better setup for my requirements. I am also considering using an online backup service for my absolute most important files, but this might be overkill. At the end of the day, I'll be using my laptop as my development machine and publishing to various VMs for testing. Aside from that my current desktop is used entirely for gaming, and therefore doesn't have anything much of particular importance on it. I may even back up some data to that machine as an extra level of redundancy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 11:08
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I can't believe I finally figured out what that goddamn annoying idle seek grinding was causing. gently caress you SMART Offline Data Collection! If you ever find yourself with a WD Green (and I guess other manufacturer) and notice it uniformly seeking like poo poo while idle, install smartmontools and disable it by running smartctl -o off /dev/yourdisk (yeah, it uses Linux notation in Windows...)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 04:03
|
|
|
code: ZFS supremacy (for those bad at math that's 246MB/s)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2010 07:10
|
|
|
edit: nevermind!
TLG James fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Sep 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
I'm looking for a multi-bay device that supports RAID-1 (or RAID-5, depending on price), but that will attach directly to my media center via USB. So, something like a NAS -- but without the network connectivity. I've looked around and the offerings that I've found have been from lovely companies and have received horrible reviews. The only exceptions are certain Drobos, but those are too expensive. I'm looking for something on par with the ReadyNAS Duo or the Linkstation Duo... but obviously it doesn't need to have user permissions and so forth, since it's directly hooked up to the host PC. Any suggestions? tl;dr version: I want an external USB hard drive/enclosure that does RAID1 or RAID5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
The original non-networked Drobo did this, minus the real-life raid. It used it's own raid-like system to handle redundancy on multiple drives, and it attached via USB.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Holy poo poo, I can't believe I finally figured out what that goddamn annoying idle seek grinding was causing. Hey thanks, im going to try this because the GP 1.5TB i have is slow as snails.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
I am just dipping my foot into the world of raid, so please take it easy on me. I'd like some feedback on my server/raid project that I hope to undertake soon. The general idea is to run a physically small and power efficient VM server, using multiple VMs for various core operations - file server, voip, etc. Parts: Asus M4A88T-I Deluxe (Mini ITX) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131659 AMD Athlon II X4 600E (Quad core, 45w) 4GB RAM For file storage I was thinking of attaching a Sans Gigital TowerRAID TR5UT-BP 5 Bay (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816111145&cm_re=sans_digital_5_bay-_-16-111-145-_-Product) and continue expansion with these raid enclosures by using motherboard's onboard usb3 and esata ports. This might be overdoing it, but maybe a software raid1 to two of the Sans Digital enclosures running raid5, so a mirrored raid5 for maximum data lose prevention. Maybe I'm going too far with this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 04:24
|
|
|
Now that opensolaris won't be seeing any more additional releases, do y'all have any consensus on what distro has the best zfs/raidz implementation? I've seen a few new purpose-built distros from ex-team members, and just wondering if anyone had used any of them, or at this point it's time to use a zfs port on something else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
Wanderer89 posted:Now that opensolaris won't be seeing any more additional releases, do y'all have any consensus on what distro has the best zfs/raidz implementation? I've seen a few new purpose-built distros from ex-team members, and just wondering if anyone had used any of them, or at this point it's time to use a zfs port on something else? Probably doesn't help you a ton in the short term, but Linux is getting a native ZFS port this month, according to this article. http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15232
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 20:52
|
|
|
G-Prime posted:Probably doesn't help you a ton in the short term, but Linux is getting a native ZFS port this month, according to this article. http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15232 Might be a while before or even ever that module is stable. If i read it correctly it's also a reimplementation? There will be bugs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
I'm also shopping for an OpenSolaris replacement (Nexenta might be it), but fyi: http://github.com/behlendorf/zfs/wiki
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2010 23:36
|
|
|
DLCinferno posted:I'm also shopping for an OpenSolaris replacement (Nexenta might be it), but fyi: http://www.illumos.org/ is basically opensolaris with all the latest patches in, and should be out soonish. I'm running a franken-build one of their coders put out as a stopgap style thing until they complete the closed source rebuilds and get an ISO out. Because of the way opensolaris and regular Solaris are compatible with eachother, and the fact that it's fairly stable by default means I can keep this box going for a year or so until they come out with Solaris 11 and we get to see the cool new stuff they come up with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 01:19
|
|
|
Wanderer89 posted:Now that opensolaris won't be seeing any more additional releases, do y'all have any consensus on what distro has the best zfs/raidz implementation? I've seen a few new purpose-built distros from ex-team members, and just wondering if anyone had used any of them, or at this point it's time to use a zfs port on something else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
Wanderer89 posted:Now that opensolaris won't be seeing any more additional releases, do y'all have any consensus on what distro has the best zfs/raidz implementation? I've seen a few new purpose-built distros from ex-team members, and just wondering if anyone had used any of them, or at this point it's time to use a zfs port on something else? Apparently FreeBSD will be actively supporting ZFS in the future, with the latest version of ZFS soon to be ported to FreeBSD. http://techie-buzz.com/foss/zfs-support-will-continue-in-freebsd.html http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODU2MQ
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 03:41
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't know what to do with my OpenSolaris install. I'm basically just biding my time until BTRFS implements RAID-5 and I am done with Solaris. It's great in the enterprise and awful in the home.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 04:05
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Yeah, I don't know what to do with my OpenSolaris install. I'm basically just biding my time until BTRFS implements RAID-5 and I am done with Solaris. It's great in the enterprise and awful in the home. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 12:48
|
|
|
n0n0 posted:I'm looking for a multi-bay device that supports RAID-1 (or RAID-5, depending on price), but that will attach directly to my media center via USB. I just posted a few posts up this exact thing. Hardware raid 5 in the enclosure (or raid 1) http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816111145&cm_re=sans_digital_5_bay-_-16-111-145-_-Product It's still expensive but cheaper than drobo and faster, though over usb you wont notice, over esata you will. Here is the 4 bay if the 5 is too expensive. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16816111143&cm_re=sans_digital_4_bay-_-16-111-143-_-Product
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 13:31
|
|
|
*oops wrong thread*
devmd01 fucked around with this message at 14:33 on Sep 13, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
lilbean posted:It's awful in the enterprise too Sup fellow Solaris buddy   Most of my Solaris problems are political, since our Solaris guy is crazy and controlling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2010 18:32
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Sup fellow Solaris buddy
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 17:51
|
|
|
lilbean posted:We've been migrating off of it this year to Linux, and only have a few machines left. ZFS was fantastic, but it's not worth everything else that comes with the OS. And gently caress SPARCs for a web shop. No idea who thought that was a good idea. I need to find something to hold 12TB of data while I try to find a OpenSolaris replacement  Either that, or wait for *BSD ZFS to catch up to my pool version, and then import the sucker. God, I hate dealing with Solaris, but at least BSD is less idiosyncratic about stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
movax posted:I need to find something to hold 12TB of data while I try to find a OpenSolaris replacement I'm waiting on BSD to have a kernel mode CIFS driver and the latest ZFS version.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2010 18:23
|
|