|
Odette posted:Regarding price of hard drives, here's a graph showing the price change in the last year or so. Note: The price is in NZD, and we pay a bit more for everything over here. Now that I think of it, there's probably a thread just for the hard drive crisis somewhere. Sure is! http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3445864 Where did you find the graph? One in AUD would be nice to see too.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Odette posted:Going the custom-built route is pretty cheap. The first post in this thread has some fairly useful information. I wouldn't recommend RAID1 at all because it has no redundancy. If a drive fails, your data is gone. I do have a bunch of outdated computers I could convert, but a) I want something small and b) I've grown out of tinkering with electronics; I don't want to spend a week trying to piece something together and having to read up on a whole bunch of software manuals and hope it'll all eventually come together, I just want it to work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 15:59
|
|
|
Just for this page, let's reiterate: RAID1: full redundancy RAID0: danger zone
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
Perhaps it would be smart to explain why RAID0 is never a good idea: When you run RAID0, you're basically halving the mean-time-between-failure of the array since all it takes is one out of two drives to fail for you to lose the entire array. Then, of course, there's the oxymoron of calling it RAID0. Now imagine trying to maintain a hardware raid setup (zfs not an option as it had to be a Windows based server throughout) with four pci-ex cards with two SAS (+ 2 SAS-to-SATA breakout cables) and having the headache of worrying about a controller dying (controllers aren't in production anymore). Thanks, previous freelance server admin, for setting up this fine nugget of a solution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
I just started playing around with a My Book World Edition II (recently discontinued in favor of the My Book Live Duo) and it's pretty interesting. It runs Linux, setting up root SSH access is a matter of checking a box, and there's a fairly dedicated hacking community that maintains an up-to-date package repository. I don't know my way around Linux very well, but it's pretty easy to turn it into a nice headless torrent box. The downside is that it's pretty darn slow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I just started playing around with a My Book World Edition II (recently discontinued in favor of the My Book Live Duo) and it's pretty interesting. It runs Linux, setting up root SSH access is a matter of checking a box, and there's a fairly dedicated hacking community that maintains an up-to-date package repository. I don't know my way around Linux very well, but it's pretty easy to turn it into a nice headless torrent box. Goddamn, that's a nice low power solution. Hope you're using rtorrent, not transmission.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
LmaoTheKid posted:Goddamn, that's a nice low power solution. Hope you're using rtorrent, not transmission. That wiki also mentioned issues with hashes on large files with rtorrent, but that was 4 years ago so hopefully I'll be okay.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
I used wTorrent when I wanted a web interface for rTorrent, but I've since switched to Deluge since you can either use it as a web interface or as the actual daemon running behind a desktop client. I run the Deluge daemon on my seedbox in a datacenter, while my desktop/laptop just run the Deluge client and act as if it was local.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I might try rtorrent. Does it have a decent web interface? That's the most appealing thing about transmission to me. As long as it has SCGI (and you configure it to listen on the private Ip instead of localhost), you can use this from your macbook: http://www.aramzamzam.net/nativa/ SCGI has been standard on rtorrent for years. I never open my terminal anymore thanks to this (unless I go lurk in the yosirc). EDIT: you can also turn off the hashing if you're not worried about redownloading something. rTorrent is light as hell on resources. My brother runs a hacked up lovely old wyse torrent with a USB hd and seeds like a bastard. Deluge is nice too but I dont really care about its "aggressive tendencies" while downloading. Matt Zerella fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Feb 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
LmaoTheKid posted:Goddamn, that's a nice low power solution. Hope you're using rtorrent, not transmission. What's the issue with transmission?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 22:26
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:What's the issue with transmission? There's nothing wrong with it but it's a lot more resource hungry than rtorrent, and that WD NAS is probably pretty anemic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
LmaoTheKid posted:There's nothing wrong with it but it's a lot more resource hungry than rtorrent, and that WD NAS is probably pretty anemic. Transmission doesn't use much more(if any) resources than rtorrent and both use much much less than deluge which is written in an interpreted language. Here's a benchmark of the gui version of transmission vs rtorrent vs others http://pastehtml.com/view/5tx16jw.html Here's a benchmark of the headless versions http://plugcomputer.org/plugforum/index.php?topic=1931.0 The headless version used less resources than rtorrent while the gui version used only a little more than rtorrent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
My bad. I posted at 3AM last night.  If you don't to go the prebuilt route, try out Synology/Thecus. There's a few 4 bay ones, like the DS411+
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
I finally got around to switching my NAS from ZFS-FUSE to the newer ZFS-on-Linux driver. My average read speed via Samba went from ~30MB/s to ~80MB/s with no additional tuning, and it supports a newer pool version as well. Definitely something to look into for anyone else going the DIY route.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Any Transmission users have suggestions for why my web interface isn't working correctly? It looks like this: Something tells me that's not right. I'm looking over the RPC options on Transmission's wiki and I think I've got it set up correctly:  Could it be an issue with the web server itself and maybe it needs updating? Hjälp! Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Feb 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 22:50
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Any Transmission users have suggestions for why my web interface isn't working correctly? It looks like this: It's likely not pulling the css, js, and image files. Make sure the directories are all laid out properly and have the right permissions on the transmission box.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:It's likely not pulling the css, js, and image files. Make sure the directories are all laid out properly and have the right permissions on the transmission box. Also I have no idea what I'm doing.  edit: Transmission Remote can't connect to it either, so it's not just a web interface issue. 
Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Feb 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:I gave it a 'chmod -R 777 web' for the folder that contains all of the web assets, but that still hasn't fixed it. I just noticed that your rpc-whitelist option only allows connections from localhost (127.0.0.1). But whitelist isn't enabled hmm. Longinus00 fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Feb 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:I just noticed that your rpc-whitelist option only allows connections from localhost (127.0.0.1). But whitelist isn't enabled hmm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
*moved my previous edit content to a new post to increase visibility* What version of transmission is this? Did you get it from optware? A quick seach through forum.transmissionbt.com gives this thread https://forum.transmissionbt.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=11921 It looks like it might be a packaging/build issue in optware. I would recommend using gdb/strace or something else going to figure out what the issue is but it sounds like you're not very comfortable in linux.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
Longinus00 posted:*moved my previous edit content to a new post to increase visibility*
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Anyone know how to mount ntfs partitions on solaris 11? Have tried installing the packages that I've found elsewhere but with no luck. any ideas?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 08:53
|
|
|
So I've just got my FreeNAS box up and running. What "maintenance" things should I be doing to it? Like S.M.A.R.T. jobs, scrubbing and the like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
what is this posted:Just for this page, let's reiterate: lol unless you've got a separate backup elsewhere, there's no such thing as full redundancy. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
Matisyahu posted:lol unless you've got a separate backup elsewhere, there's no such thing as full redundancy. Bad semantics. RAID 1 is 100% redundancy of data storage between two drives. What it is not is a backup. E: Nearly got probated myself for backseat modding. Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 14:03 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 11:18
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:Bad semantics. RAID 1 is 100% redundancy of data storage between two drives. What it is not is a backup. Bad semantics? Don't go making blanket statements about different RAID levels being 100% redundant because they're not, nothing is ever guaranteed 100%. Matisyahu fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Feb 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
Matisyahu posted:Bad semantics? Don't go making blanket statements about different RAID levels being 100% redundant because they're not, nothing is ever guaranteed 100%. He's right and you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
yup Currently running a test setup with 6x500gb drives in raidz on solaris 11, just wondering what the implications are of using different sized hard drives in a pool? Currently looking at an LSI SAS 9201-16i along with either the norco 4220 or 3126 and was planning on just using my existing mixed bag of hard drives (mostly 1tb & 1.5tb) until prices return to normal...
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Matisyahu posted:Anyone know how to mount ntfs partitions on solaris 11? Have tried installing the packages that I've found elsewhere but with no luck. Pretty sure it's not possible. It requires FUSE for Solaris and I don't think that was ever completed. Matisyahu posted:yup If you make a RAIDZ pool with different sized drives, it will be as if all drivers were the size of the smallest drive (so if you have 3 1TB and 3 1.5TB your raidz pool would be 5TB). You can replace the drivers later on to grow the array. So if you replace your 3 1TB drives with 2TB drivers, now it's as if you had 6 1.5TB drives, so your capacity is now 7.5TB (because it's an array of 6 1.5TB drivers).
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
In regards to expanding a RAIDZ pool via drive-swaps, is it possible to grow an array that way to a size larger than any of the initial drives? Eg, if I have 4x2TB drives now, and swap each out so I eventually end up with a 4x4TB drive, will my usable space expand from 6TB to 12TB, or be forever limited to 6TB regardless?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
DrDork posted:In regards to expanding a RAIDZ pool via drive-swaps, is it possible to grow an array that way to a size larger than any of the initial drives? Eg, if I have 4x2TB drives now, and swap each out so I eventually end up with a 4x4TB drive, will my usable space expand from 6TB to 12TB, or be forever limited to 6TB regardless? It will always expand to the size of the smallest drive you currently have. I'm not sure if it's true anymore, but at one time, you had to export and reimport the pool (or just reboot) for the system to see the increased size of the pool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
With the latest ZFS, there's a property called autoexpand that controls whether that expansion happens or not. Very handy if you need to preserve the ability to put a smaller drive back in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 18:46
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Pretty sure it's not possible. It requires FUSE for Solaris and I don't think that was ever completed. Ok thanks for that, thought that might be the case. DrDork posted:In regards to expanding a RAIDZ pool via drive-swaps, is it possible to grow an array that way to a size larger than any of the initial drives? Eg, if I have 4x2TB drives now, and swap each out so I eventually end up with a 4x4TB drive, will my usable space expand from 6TB to 12TB, or be forever limited to 6TB regardless? As I understand it to expand a 4 disk raidz pool like you're talking about you'd need to either: a: Add larger disks one by one, allowing the pool to resilver each time until all drives have been replaced by the 4TB drives that you were talking about at which point the pool will grow. b: Add another vdev of 4 disks in raidz to the pool.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 18:52
|
|
|
Plug in case anyone needs a 5-in-3 for cheaper than just about anywhere else on the internet - I'm selling my old one I would also like to say that if anyone is looking at anything other than a super-bare-bones build for their fileserver, I have to strongly recommend considering doing it as an ESXi all-in-one. It's really nice to move to a box where whenever I replace my array, I can also seamlessly switch to Solaris/ZFS from Ubuntu/mdadm, without having to buy anything other than the drives and a controller, and consolidating my monowall into the same piece of hardware is pretty slick too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
I'm looking for a low power USB NAS that handles 2TB+ ntfs drives for read+write and does SMB sharing. I don't really care about wireless or raid or even speed, it's just going to stream videos on a 100Mbps wired LAN that top out at like 3MB/s, most seem to do this easily. best I've found from a lot of browsing on amazon: iomega iconnect http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/nas/nas-reviews/31094-iomega-iconnect-wireless-data-station-reviewed?start=1 So, this is almost what I want, but it doesn't put the drives to sleep. At all. Ever. And that kills it for me (what's the point of a 5 watt NAS when it keeps multiple 10 watt disks spinning 24/7?) Can I get a recommendation for something like this that doesn't suck?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 06:38
|
|
|
Besides a decrease in read/write performance, are there any other potential problems with mixing hard drives with different sized sectors in a raidz pool?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Jolan posted:Anyways, two things to start off: I've got it in my head that a device with Wake-On-LAN is better than one without, because it'd use less power when not in use and would spin up only when actually needed, so the drive would last longer. Am I right in thinking this? Sorry to be quoting myself, but could someone give any insight in the usefulness of WOL, please?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
Well, you need to send a specially formatted WOL packet to the MAC address to wake it. It doesn't just wake on "any" traffic. Otherwise it'd never sleep. If you can bookmark your router's WOL page it can be useful to spin up your NAS if you need to access something. Or, there may be desktop programs that do the same thing. But my preferred method to save power on a NAS is to keep the board itself up, and let it handle drive spindown via hdparm or a similar method. I keep my Synology connected 24/7 to my main server via NFS, and the drives only spin up if I actually copy something to the NFS-mounted partitions, and it's all automatic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 10:30
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:Well, you need to send a specially formatted WOL packet to the MAC address to wake it. It doesn't just wake on "any" traffic. Otherwise it'd never sleep. I personally just have mine shut down and start up at times of the day. 7-8am boot, 3pm- boot and I shut it down when I go to bed. Works very well for me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
Jolan posted:Sorry to be quoting myself, but could someone give any insight in the usefulness of WOL, please? Spinning down disks can be independent of WOL. With WOL you can have a daemon/service in the background of your clients that continuously pings the WOL packet to the server you're interested in whenever you're booted. The server might also have it's own daemon/service that will auto standby if no magic packets come in for a long enough time frame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 20:23
|
|