Also use flexraid here. Affords me data loss from failing hard drives on a single 3TB drive, or any two drives that add up to 3TB thanks to the logical grouping.
No protection against user-driven corruption or deletion, but those risks are easier to control, for me at least.
No protection against user-driven corruption or deletion, but those risks are easier to control, for me at least.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
i have 4x750 in RAID 5, backed up by 3TB external. will be swapping out for 2x3TB in RAID1, backed up by 3TB external relatively soon.
2x90 gb SSD's in raid 0 on my main rig(sw raid.....) (backed up to a network drive)
2x500gb in raid 1 to hold VM's on server
4x1.5TB of raid 10 to attached to windows server VM as storage
(real hw raid on a PERC5i)
occasionally backed up to 3tb external
2x500gb in raid 1 to hold VM's on server
4x1.5TB of raid 10 to attached to windows server VM as storage
(real hw raid on a PERC5i)
occasionally backed up to 3tb external
Last edited:
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
- Feb 21, 2002
- 6,486
- 2,363
- 136
Yes, but I need windows box because I want to run MS SQL server on the same box for me to play with. And I also want to stay current with Windows Server which rules out Unix based solutions.
I know this has been asked, if not on this forum, definitely on others, but can anyone comment on the SnapRAID vs FlexRAID? So far the biggest argument in favor of SnapRAID I've heard is that the developer behind FlexRAID has moved on to other projects, but I have no idea if this is true or not. Does anyone know? Or can anyone chime in on the SnapRAID vs FlexRAID?
I tried SnapRAID when I was exploring my RAID options. I chose FlexRAID because I didn't want to go command line, never really got comfortable with the Elucidate GUI and I wanted the storage pooling that comes with FlexRAID. I could have just added DrivePool, but I figured if I was gonna go paid I would just go with FlexRAID. The FlexRAID forum is a little slow, but the wikis are pretty good. The developer hasn't abandoned FlexRAID by any stretch, they just aren't developing the current iteration any further. My understanding is they are trying to get a ZFS implemantation in place and most of their focus is there.
It's not a Real-Time RAID solution, but the Snapshot setup is more than adequate for my needs. If you really wanna look further into FlexRAID then you may want to check out:
www.assassinserver.com
It's a paid sub, but it has a lot of great info including how to set everything up smoothly.... better than the FlexRAID wiki, in fact.
It's not a Real-Time RAID solution, but the Snapshot setup is more than adequate for my needs. If you really wanna look further into FlexRAID then you may want to check out:
www.assassinserver.com
It's a paid sub, but it has a lot of great info including how to set everything up smoothly.... better than the FlexRAID wiki, in fact.
smakme7757
Golden Member
- Nov 20, 2010
- 1,487
- 1
- 81
I don't use RAID on my desktop system, but i use RAID in my server enviroment for obvious reasons.
Using linux md raid 1 and 5 in my server, no raid in my desktop. I just regularly backup my desktop drive to my server.
fleshconsumed
Diamond Member
- Feb 21, 2002
- 6,486
- 2,363
- 136
Not a big fan of paid guide subscriptions.
From what I understand the last stable version of FlexRAID is over a year old, that doesn't sound good to me, I can't believe a project like this would not get update for more than a year. Apparently FlexRAID also does not officially support ReFS, however unofficially I've read forum posts where people said it worked.
As far as SnapRAID, from what I understand it does support drive pooling. And the GUI doesn't seem too bad at all. I've also read documentation on SnapRAID website and it seems fairly straightforward, the hardest part is to generate a config file, which is one of the things GUI is supposed to do for you. I'm not sure if SnapRAID supports ReFS though.
Eh. Decisions, decision... I'm not building the rig until at least Black Friday of this year so I got some time to find the answers.
WilliamM2
Diamond Member
- Jun 14, 2012
- 3,008
- 891
- 136
I use two 5 year old Samsung 500GB drives in RAID 0 for storage on my desktop, SSD for boot.
I use a WD Black 1 TB connected by eSATA as backup. I've noticed that it's almost as fast without RAID, the 2TB models are faster yet. So if and when one of the 500GB drives dies. I'll probably stop using RAID 0 for the first time in more than 12 years. No need.
I use a WD Black 1 TB connected by eSATA as backup. I've noticed that it's almost as fast without RAID, the 2TB models are faster yet. So if and when one of the 500GB drives dies. I'll probably stop using RAID 0 for the first time in more than 12 years. No need.
Never did have the money when i was younger to mess with the different RAID levels at home. And now that server work is my living, i dont really want to mess with it at home (even if i did have the free time).
I'm lazy and went with windows home server 2011 for my file server OS. That coupled with StableBit Drive Pool has covered all my needs. Just toss all my spare disks in there, add them to the pool and I'm good to go. Since any JBOD system is usually a bad idea, all my critical data (some files, music, pictures and home movies) is backed up via Crashplan. So far so good. Still havent even explored all the option in the OS like computer backup and all that. really need to get around to it.
I'm lazy and went with windows home server 2011 for my file server OS. That coupled with StableBit Drive Pool has covered all my needs. Just toss all my spare disks in there, add them to the pool and I'm good to go. Since any JBOD system is usually a bad idea, all my critical data (some files, music, pictures and home movies) is backed up via Crashplan. So far so good. Still havent even explored all the option in the OS like computer backup and all that. really need to get around to it.
I'm with Drako.
The speed benefit is largely moot because of SSDs and the limitations of the SATA interface. Any speed benefit is so small that it isn't worth the risk to data.
Drako
Lifer
- Jun 9, 2007
- 10,697
- 161
- 106
It buys very little in the way of performance increase in most instances, and no data protection.
edit: Oh, and it's not really RAID
Last edited:
middlehead
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 4,573
- 2
- 81
tweakboy
Diamond Member
dave_the_nerd
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2011
- 16,994
- 1,622
- 126
You will find the answer at the intersection of Cost-Is-An-Issue Street & Lots-Of-Capacity Ave.
It's down the block from the Data-Integrity-Is-Less-Important building, and across the street from Our-Application-Is-Primarily-Limited-By-Sequential-I/O, Inc.
It's on the second floor, right over the bakery. They have these awesome rolls, called "Pane de Parity–Calculations–create-CPU-overhead-and-most-non-enterprise-users-are-using-software-RAID." They're almost as delicious as the "Creme de data-integrity-doesn't-matter-because-I-do-frequent-backups."
Admittedly, it's not as great as the food at Chez SSDs, but the price per plate is way lower. It's totally "real."
Last edited:
R5 (5x2TB) on my home computer (which serves out picture and media files to network players). Almost everything is backup to an external 6TB spaces.
I also run checksum on about 1TB worth of files weekly to make sure that file corruption doesn't get to me.
I also run checksum on about 1TB worth of files weekly to make sure that file corruption doesn't get to me.
Essence_of_War
Platinum Member
- Feb 21, 2013
- 2,650
- 4
- 81
It buys very little in the way of performance increase in most instances, and no data protection.
edit: Oh, and it's not really RAID
the 2 90 GB SSD's I bought set me back slightly more than a single 120, and significantly less than a 180.
and I do backups, becuase, well, I do backups. so data loss is as much of a non-issue and I care to make it
aka what dave the nerd said
Last edited:
I have a Windows 2011 server with 2x2TB RAID 1 and 2x1.5TB RAID 1, using the built in Windows RAID. I though about going RAID 5, but after looking at the Pros and cons, I thought just doing a simple RAID 1 was a better idea. I get less storage space, but it's easy to manage, and very fault tolerant.
OK, after further review, I retract my original statements. I know why home users still do RAID 0. Because they can.
It's the same reason that I would own a Corvette even though I will probably never have a reason to go 0-60 in under 4 seconds and I won't ever need half the top end speed of 192mph (or whatever it is).
We're dudes and we like to squeak performance wherever possible even if we don't need it.
Eventually one of us will find a unicorn.
It's the same reason that I would own a Corvette even though I will probably never have a reason to go 0-60 in under 4 seconds and I won't ever need half the top end speed of 192mph (or whatever it is).
We're dudes and we like to squeak performance wherever possible even if we don't need it.
Eventually one of us will find a unicorn.
MoInSTL
Senior member
- Jan 2, 2012
- 392
- 0
- 76
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter