|
The following is what I'm trying to achieve: I want a centralized hub where I can store and download media. I will have a Mac Mini attached to the main TV and I want the ability to stream the media on the Mini (probably will be hard-wired) and any other Mac laptops that are on the network (wirelessly). I also want the ability to reach this drive remotely if possible. I'd also like to set up QoS for the network. I think an airport extreme with a drobo (4 bay x 3TB) attached via usb 2.0 would do the trick for everything but the QoS. Anyone know of a better solution or how to get QoS working with an airport extreme?
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
AEBS disk sharing over USB 2.0 is slow. Drobos are slow. I don't even want to imagine how slow a Drobo over an AEBS' USB 2.0 would be. Just make the Mini the media server, especially if it's hard-wired. They're exceptionally good at that role with a decent FW800 DAS attached.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
Puddin posted:Also, are 4k sector drives still an issue with RAIDZ and manual alignment needed or is that 4k mode setting in FreeNAS enough, or should I stick to 512b sector drives? If I installed FreeNAS 8, would I need to bother with aligning my AF drives? I figured the latest version of FreeNAS would deal with Advanced Format drives just fine, just like WHSv2 and Win2008 and such?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
jeeves posted:If I installed FreeNAS 8, would I need to bother with aligning my AF drives? I figured the latest version of FreeNAS would deal with Advanced Format drives just fine, just like WHSv2 and Win2008 and such? Dunno man, thats what I need to know too!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
jeeves posted:If I installed FreeNAS 8, would I need to bother with aligning my AF drives? I figured the latest version of FreeNAS would deal with Advanced Format drives just fine, just like WHSv2 and Win2008 and such? There was a checkbox for it in FreeNAS 7, dunno about 8. I'd assume so, but who knows. The guys who develop it seem a little bit off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 04:29
|
|
|
Telex posted:There was a checkbox for it in FreeNAS 7, dunno about 8. I'd assume so, but who knows. The guys who develop it seem a little bit off. Yeah plus their support forums (i use the term very lightly) don't actually provide answers for peoples questions. Basically people respond saying yup you can do it, but then dint show how to do it. That check box in fn7, is any other alignment needed for 4k drives in zfs, or does that take care of everything for you? I'm leaning more and more now to just throwing win7 on it and using flex raid or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 04:38
|
|
|
Puddin posted:Whats the concensus on Hitachi drives now since that firmware fiasco years back? Have they got their poo poo together? According to some chaps who should know (Backblaze) the Hitachi Deskstar 3TB 5K3000's are the best on the market at the moment, with the lowest failure rate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:12
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Don't you mean three drives? I thought Z2 could lose two drives and still maintain integrity. Hell, from the sound of it you could lose up to six drives if it's no more than two in any one Z2. Ah yeah, you're right. Losing two drives in the same vdev would put me very much on the danger zone, losing three in the same vdev would gently caress me (and be hilariously bad luck).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:AEBS disk sharing over USB 2.0 is slow. Thanks for the suggestion. I looked up a tutorial about how to do basically what I was trying to achieve. Would a Drobo hooked up via FW800 still not be a good idea for DAS? I want at least 6TB of storage to show as a single drive and with a Drobo I have that and more with the safety of being able to lose a drive. Also, I wanted to see if anyone had a suggestion as far as a solution to keep my itunes libraries synched. My library on my MBP is over 250GB and it would be nice to sync it up at least occasionally with the mini.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:33
|
|
|
P-wrinkle posted:Thanks for the suggestion. I looked up a tutorial about how to do basically what I was trying to achieve. P-wrinkle posted:Also, I wanted to see if anyone had a suggestion as far as a solution to keep my itunes libraries synched. My library on my MBP is over 250GB and it would be nice to sync it up at least occasionally with the mini.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:40
|
|
|
Tornhelm posted:According to some chaps who should know (Backblaze) the Hitachi Deskstar 3TB 5K3000's are the best on the market at the moment, with the lowest failure rate. http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/07/20/petabytes-on-a-budget-v2-0revealing-more-secrets/ quote:We are constantly looking at new hard drives, evaluating them for reliability and power consumption. The Hitachi 3TB drive (Hitachi Deskstar 5K3000 HDS5C3030ALA630) is our current favorite for both its low power demand and astounding reliability. The Western Digital and Seagate equivalents we tested saw much higher rates of popping out of RAID arrays and drive failure. Even the Western Digital Enterprise Hard Drives had the same high failure rates. The Hitachi drives, on the other hand, perform wonderfully. P-wrinkle posted:Thanks for the suggestion. I looked up a tutorial about how to do basically what I was trying to achieve.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:49
|
|
|
5K3000 is a hilarious misnomer too; it could be either the 2TB or the 3TB version. Most colloquial references to the 5K3000 seem to be for the 2TB version (0F12117)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:58
|
|
|
teamdest posted:At which point (4 drive R6) you might as well use a Striped pair of Mirrors to avoid the write-hole and probably boost performance a bit. Does the write hole become a factor after a certain drive size, or is it a factor in an array with any size of drives? I thought I remember it being present in arrays with drives over 1.5tb, but I could be wrong. Does anyone know?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:32
|
|
|
If you have four drives you should use RAID10 unless you absolutely need that extra capacity and have to use RAID5 for some odd reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Your risk of a drive giving up the ghost and taking your array with it is mostly a problem with drives of 1TB or higher on RAID5 (I don't recall the number for RAID6), but the write hole can happen on drives of 1MB, if you have a power loss or crash in the middle of a write without a UPS (or better, a controller with a battery-backed cache, since a UPS won't save you from a crash).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
frogbs posted:Does the write hole become a factor after a certain drive size, or is it a factor in an array with any size of drives? I thought I remember it being present in arrays with drives over 1.5tb, but I could be wrong. Does anyone know? The write hole is when the system is writing data to the array, and it write some of the drives, but not all of them, and in the middle of the write the power dies, leaving your disks in an inconsistent state. That's why hardware RAID cards have battery cache in them, so they can hold onto those writes until the system gets power. ZFS doesn't have this problem because it's copy-on-write (each write doesn't overwite the old data) so if the power goes out in the middle of the write you've still got the old data, and the system knows it hasn't finished that write. E: beaten
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
what is this posted:If you have four drives you should use RAID10 unless you absolutely need that extra capacity and have to use RAID5 for some odd reason. I'm building an array for video editing/file footage storage. We'd like to not lose everything, so I think the best option then is to buy the biggest array we can (12tb) and then use it in raid 10. Having an array that can potentially fail kind of defeats the purpose. We'll have it on a UPS, so I doubt we'd run into the write hole problem, but better safe than sorry!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
frogbs posted:I'm building an array for video editing/file footage storage. We'd like to not lose everything, so I think the best option then is to buy the biggest array we can (12tb) and then use it in raid 10. Having an array that can potentially fail kind of defeats the purpose. We'll have it on a UPS, so I doubt we'd run into the write hole problem, but better safe than sorry! If you want to "Not lose everything", you need to make backups. RAID is not a backup. Make Backups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 18:50
|
|
|
teamdest posted:If you want to "Not lose everything", you need to make backups. RAID is not a backup. Make Backups. This should be tattooed on prospective storage admin's heads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 19:35
|
|
|
teamdest posted:If you want to "Not lose everything", you need to make backups. RAID is not a backup. Make Backups. We'll have DVD backups of all finished programming. We cant afford to have another, identical raid as a backup though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:14
|
|
|
A second identical RAID mirroring your data would also be just redundancy, and not backup. If you mirror once a week then it would be a crappy backup, but better than nothing. The problem with that approach is that the more often you mirror, the less useful it is as "backup," but the less work you'll lose if you do have to restore. The moment you mirror it, it ceases to be backup, and only becomes backup when you start actually making changes after mirroring. To really have backup you'd probably need a second, bigger RAID, so you can store older versions of things and actually roll back to something. Or tape. Imagine you accidentally delete a project somehow. Now imagine you don't realize you deleted it for a few days. That's what backup is designed to solve. Or imagine if you have data corruption on a video. You don't realize it initially because you're working with the low res versions of video as you edit. But when you go to render out your final, it crashes. Now you need to restore to the version of the video you initially captured. What do you reach for? Well, maybe the tape, if you have it. That's the "backup" of the original version of the video. Whatever backup system you implement should also let you reach back to that initially ingested video file. I'm sure you understand this, but anytime someone says "a second, identical" it sets off all kinds of warning bells that they have no idea what backup is, or backing things up means. Because usually the last thing you want is a second, identical system. You want a big, comprehensive system. what is this fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Aug 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:45
|
|
|
what is this posted:Sound advice! I hear everything your saying. Its just hard to justify best practices like this when money is incredibly, incredibly tight. The reality is we cant afford a backup on some sort of larger storage system. We have all our original tapes, as well as a DVD archive of aired, edited programming. We have good backup practices for our employees documents/email/user data (local redundancy with an offsite backup). That set of data is relatively small, so it's manageable. At this point i'm leaning towards either just using 3tb Raid 1 external enclosure anad adding more as we use the space. I found an enclosure that does Raid 3, am I correct in that if you lose the parity disk are you screwed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:59
|
|
|
Unless you know enough to have a specific reason why, and explanation for using RAID3, you shouldn't use RAID3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
You know what you could do if you're that strapped on a budget and can't squeeze in for backup? Use Crashplan and assume that if anything goes wrong you'll just have to spend a lot more time to restore from a backup over the Internet. Mass storage for video is rather expensive honestly, and I know non-profits overall that get involved in IT tend to not have anything close to a budget to do much beyond get a simple, very basic, rather unreliable setup going. Also, another "identical RAID" is usually used for something called replication, which is a bit orthogonal to a backup and is usually used by organizations that must make sure that data is available if it goes down fairly quickly. This is usually mentioned in disaster recovery literature, and frankly if you're a non-profit or perhaps even an educational institution (especially public), disaster recovery (that actually works) is probably something you can't afford and you guys are already used to putting blood, sweat, and tears to get basically everything done when money's tight (namely - every day).
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Lian-Li has just announced an awesome-looking little case, the PC-Q25. Five hotswap 3.5" bays, three fixed bays (either 1x 3.5" and 2x 2.5" or vice versa, depending on your video card) and a Mini-ITX or Mini-DTX motherboard. Does anyone make a Mini-DTX board that isn't an Atom? I really want to put a nicely powered box in here that would work as both my living room HTPC and my fileserver, but to do so I'll need to fill every one of those drat bays. I found an Atom board that has one x16 slot, one x1 slot, and 6x SATA, and even a mini-PCIe slot. I could stick a video card in the x16, power all of the hotswaps off of the onboard controller, one of the fixed bays on the last controller port, and then the other two with an add-in controller on either the x1 slot or the mini-PCIe. I guess I could go with a Mini-ITX board with Sandy Bridge and use that onboard video instead of an add-in card?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 00:55
|
|
|
Thats a nice looking case. Any word on pricing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:32
|
|
|
Not that I've seen, I don't think any retailers have it yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
Asus should be releasing the F1A75-I Deluxe soon (Europe gets it first, apparently). Takes an AMD APU (like an A8-3850 quad core with Radeon 6620 graphics - gooood amount better than Sandy Bridge). Only four SATA ports on-board, but with the right controller card, that shouldn't matter. Would make an excellent HTPC/server combo box with a good amount of muscle behind it for some basic gaming. It could probably play anything out there at 1366x768 with good detail levels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:40
|
|
|
For backups, the thing most people don't realize is that they need to be persistent, over at least a fairly long period. A second array would be additional redundancy but doesn't cover 99% of the issues that would require data to be restored. Tape, DVDs, Hard drives, the media doesn't matter, but the data needs to be persistent: once it's written, it is (within reason) never erased, only versioned as needed for updating. Crashplan/Mozy/Backblaze are backup solutions. Folders labelled by date with complete copies of your working directory are backups (though time-intensive and annoying ones). a Git Repository on a remote computer is a backup (I do this with documents). A second file server is, unless it is large enough to contain the initial dataset + all additional changes (deltas), not a backup, it is redundancy in case your primary server dies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 03:00
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Lian-Li has just announced an awesome-looking little case, the PC-Q25. This thing looks awesome, I absolutely want one. Hopefully it is not insanely expensive. http://www.lian-li.com/v2/en/product/product06.php?pr_index=584&cl_index=1&sc_index=25&ss_index=64&g=f
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 06:17
|
|
|
Moey posted:This thing looks awesome, I absolutely want one. Hopefully it is not insanely expensive. I totally missed this the first time looking at but their page has some awesome Engrish on it. LianLi posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 13:08
|
|
|
In the vien of RAID IS NOT A BACKUP, I have an idea that probably won't work because goons love to gently caress goons, but might end up working out somehow. Form a company or group that does time sharing on a single LTO-5 drive + SAS card. Each goon picks a time slot in the month he wants to back up his poo poo on, and when his slot comes up, the goon that currently has possession of the drive gets a UPS label, puts the drive back in the reusable packaging, and mails it on it's merry way. A half dozen goons ponying up $400 each for the drive + $50 a month for a 3 day backup window once a month seems like a pretty good deal compared to coughing up $2k+ for their own personal LTO-5 drive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
Or you could pay a hell of a lot less for Crashplan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 14:43
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Or you could pay a hell of a lot less for Crashplan. The logistics of having 5+ TB of poo poo on crashplan makes anyone without a FIOS connection cry. It would take me something like 17 months to upload all of my media to the crashplan servers. And yeah, the idea is pretty much a non-starter, but a man can dream.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 15:02
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:The logistics of having 5+ TB of poo poo on crashplan makes anyone without a FIOS connection cry. It would take me something like 17 months to upload all of my media to the crashplan servers. Either Crashplan or Backblaze, can't remember which, offers you the option of mailing a drive with your data on it, in order to speed up the initial backup. I always thought that was a cool idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 15:11
|
|
|
teamdest posted:Either Crashplan or Backblaze, can't remember which, offers you the option of mailing a drive with your data on it, in order to speed up the initial backup. I always thought that was a cool idea. Crashplan does for sure. It's not cheap but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than goonsharing a LTO drive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
Puddin posted:I totally missed this the first time looking at but their page has some awesome Engrish on it. Removieable Hard Drive Rrak is their trademarked name for their patented technological wonder of case ingenuity, duh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 17:40
|
|
|
Aside from things like WHS1/Drivebender and Netgear's XRaid, are there other technologies for throw-disks-at-it storage? I want to be able to upgrade my array in pieces, as I get cash for bigger disks as prices fall. I'm really liking the ReadyNAS Ultra 6 as a prebuilt NAS for this reason. I've tried to roll my own a few times and failed miserably thanks to drives dying on me due to bad drives, bad controllers, overheating, you name it, it's failed on me. I'm very wary of building my own now, so while unRaid looks awesome and right up my alley, I don't think I want to risk it. Advice?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 19:11
|
|
|
I've just purchased a Synology DS211J, a simple 2 bay NAS for the home user. I've put 2x Hitachi 2TB drives in there and I want to use it basically for media storage, movies, TV shows, music, photos etc. I don't want to use any form of RAID, just want to use the total storage capacity of both drives. However, I'm not sure if I should be going for JBOD to make it appear as one single partition, or just set up each drive individually and have 2 partitions and manually manage what goes where. I'm concerned about what happens in a JBOD setup if one of the drives fails? Will it mean I lost the whole partition? I don't understand how it divides the data across the drives if there is only one partition appearing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 08:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:44 |
|
|
JBOD means Just a Bunch Of Disks (Drives), i.e. each disk is available as a separate share. You lose a disk you lose the share. Some implementations may join all the disks to appear as one logical volume, lose one disk then you simply lose the files on that disk only. Synology appears to go this route with additional caveat: Synology posted:Any disk error or power failure in a JBOD/RAID-0 Environment may result in the total destruction of the Volume. While it offers the most capacity, it is also most vulnerable to errors and is not advisable to use this Volume type. http://forum.synology.com/wiki/index.php/How_to_Manage_the_Synology_RAID_Volume Underneath Synology appear to be using a linear software RAID, which has the following warning: TLDP posted:Spare-disks are not supported here. If a disk dies, the array dies with it. There's no information to put on a spare disk. http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Software-RAID-HOWTO-5.html#ss5.4 MrMoo fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Aug 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2011 08:47
|
|
