Guide To Building A Media Storage Server - Page 28 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-09-2008, 11:28 AM
Member
 
Dan_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi HappyFunBoater:

Your name has figured prominently in this thread and you have brought a lot to the table in terms of very useful information and I for one appreciate that; my knowledge lies more in parallel SCSI but I like what SAS has to offer. So what did you think about miimura's question about using SATA in SAS expanders? I personally don't think I could expand fast enough to make use of the awesome expansion capability of SAS, well that is before technology changes on us again

-Dan
Dan_B is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-09-2008, 12:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HappyFunBoater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,992
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_B View Post

Hi HappyFunBoater:

Your name has figured prominently in this thread and you have brought a lot to the table in terms of very useful information and I for one appreciate that; my knowledge lies more in parallel SCSI but I like what SAS has to offer. So what did you think about miimura's question about using SATA in SAS expanders? I personally don't think I could expand fast enough to make use of the awesome expansion capability of SAS, well that is before technology changes on us again

-Dan

Thanks, Dan. I appreciate the very kind comments.

I'll take a look at miimura's post. I admit that the first time I read it I noticed all the pricing and my eyes glossed over because I'm not up to speed on current pricing. But I'll take another look at it.
HappyFunBoater is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 05:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sgt_Strider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Is it really necessary to get a server motherboard to get a PCI-E X8 to get these RAID cards to work? I have a consumer base motherboard with crossfire support. Will the second PCI-E X16 slot, but becomes electrically X8 when it's in crossfire mode work with these RAID cards? I would prefer to use my existing components like RAM instead of buying brand new components.
Sgt_Strider is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 05:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sgt_Strider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenshin-san View Post

Seagate 1.5TB ST31500341AS and Areca 1280ml - 24 compatibility test:

*drumroll*

So far, so good. 30 hours to create a full size R5 volume.

The 4 x 1.5TB Seagates have now been running against Winthrax for over 12 hours on the new volume without a single blip.

I ran a quick test with them against IOMeter (16 I/O per target, 64kb; 100% Write, 0% Rand and 64kb; 100% Read; 0% Rand) and they faired much better than the WD1001FALS did on the 1680ix. The average write speed was just over 300MB/sec, while the average read speed was 25-35 MB/sec higher. I'm very satisfied with those numbers in a 4 drive array.

I hope I'm not being premature in saying that this combination looks like a winner.

Let me know if you guys have any other performance/tests you'd like me to run; I'm going to leave Winthrax up for now.

EDIT: I should probably mention that the very first thing I did when receiving the card was to update the "out of the box" firmware from 1.43 to the latest version (1.45) from the website.

Which motherboard did you used? What was your system configuration?
Sgt_Strider is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 05:57 PM
Member
 
Dan_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It all depends on the motherboard and how it works handling video. Some motherboards do not allow you to have anything in the primary x16 slot other than a video card. With that said, I know that the Gigabyte board I used and set up for a friend worked great with a 3-Ware SATA RAID controller. I believe it was just a single x16 slot board though, not Crossfire.

-Dan
Dan_B is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 06:35 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sgt_Strider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by garycase2001 View Post

I'm coming to the same conclusion. Especially with either WHS, where you'd lose one disks worth of data if a disk failed (and none of your critical duplicated data), or with UnRAID, where you'd lose nothing with a single disk failure and one disk worth if two drives failed (unlike the possibility of losing everything on a RAID-5 array with two disk failures).

Re-ripping everything isn't a fun idea --> but assuming a single disk failure, that's "only" 25 hours or so to re-rip 300 DVDs to a 1.5TB replacement drive. [Assuming 10 min/rip and 2 rips at a time => I could actually do more than that]. If it happened more than a couple times, I'd probably decide "what the hxxx" and build a backup server (which is what I've been thinking about doing) -- or I may just do that anyway in a year or two when 2TB, 4TB, or who-knows what size drives are available at reasonable prices

I really like the features of WHS ... but like the fault-tolerance of UnRAID. I plan to "play" with both over the next few weeks ... then build up a 10-12TB system to load my media to. Meanwhile, I'm experimenting with just how I'll store/catalog/access the DVDs (per an earlier discussion in this thead).

Are you saying that WHS have not fault tolerance? Meaning I can lose data if at least one drive dies?
Sgt_Strider is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 06:45 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sgt_Strider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim HTPC View Post

How about saving the time to re-rip 200 blu-ray movies (about a month unless you are uber rich or are un-employed and have 24 hours of free time).

If a drive goes bad, and they will, you can insert your handy replacement drive immediately (and yes you were notified by e-mail because you didn't buy a cheapo NAS correct?).

If you wanted "backup" or what we call Disaster Recovery, then you run two RAID 5/6 arrays with the same data synchronized. Add as many as you like to satisfy your paranoid tendencies.

For medical images we use RAID 6 arrays accompanied with disaster relief RAID 6 arrays that are synchronized every day at an off-site location.

For the average media user, I would say RAID 6 is a fair compromise. What are the odds of 3 drives failing at the same time during an eclipse?

You can be scared all you like about the idea of an error during the rebuilding of an array.... it is a possibility. That is why it is also recommended to run redundant power supplies and on a large UPS system to last several hours. And don't buy cheap crap. If you spent 50 cents on a RAID card, well you get what you paid for.

We have not had one array fail in over 7 years. Only drives.

Interesting comment Jim, but it sounds like what you're proposing will be super expensive like more than $5000. Won't you need two RAID cards that will support RAID 6?
Sgt_Strider is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 06:46 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sgt_Strider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_B View Post

It all depends on the motherboard and how it works handling video. Some motherboards do not allow you to have anything in the primary x16 slot other than a video card. With that said, I know that the Gigabyte board I used and set up for a friend worked great with a 3-Ware SATA RAID controller. I believe it was just a single x16 slot board though, not Crossfire.

-Dan

I just got a Gigabyte EP45-UD3P and it has crossfire support. I need to have a videocard in there or else my screen will be blank.
Sgt_Strider is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 06:54 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sgt_Strider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenshin-san View Post

No need for that. I believe that the pro's and con's of differing solutions have been pretty thoroughly discussed, they just need to be consolidated into a list that everyone (including you) contributes to. Then we can stop rehashing them over and over again.

I was going to suggest that. Maybe you or any other "expert" on this can compile a list of pros and cons of RAID 5, WHS, and even give a recommendation for an ideal and realistic setup for 70-80% of users.
Sgt_Strider is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 07:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
garycase2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post

I was going to suggest that. Maybe you or any other "expert" on this can compile a list of pros and cons of RAID 5, WHS, and even give a recommendation for an ideal and realistic setup for 70-80% of users.

I don't have time to do a comprehensive list, but since you asked about WHS I'll add a few notes for all of the key options that may be helpful ...

(a) WHS => No fault tolerance; but can be set to maintain duplicates, which it will keep on different disks ... so if you do that then you won't lose anything with a single disk failure. It also doesn't stripe the data, so any data loss you do encounter is limited to data on the actual failed drive (not in a larger array).

(b) RAID-5 => Tolerates a single drive failure. Multiple drive failures => loss of the entire array. (there are exceptions if the drive doesn't totally fail ... but for planning purposes you should assume 2 failures = total loss).

(c) RAID-6 => Tolerates two drive failures. Otherwise like RAID-5.

(d) UnRAID => Tolerates a single drive failure. Does not stripe the data, so a dual drive failure will only result in loss of the data on the failed drives. Since it's the most-used drive, there's a good chance that a dual drive failure would include the parity drive ... if so you'd only lose one drive's worth of data (again, that's in a two-drive failure condition).

RAID-5 & RAID-6 give much better speeds, since they stripe the data. UnRAID and WHS will have read speeds equivalent to the individual drives. (Still likely plenty fast for what most folks are doing in this forum).

UnRAID requires a dedicated system just to maintain the array. Boots off a USB key. WHS has a lot of neat additional features -- automatic image backup of all your other windows machines; automatic duplication IF you have the disks and set it to do so; etc. RAID-5 & 6 controllers can be used in an existing system ... although for large arrays these are generally going to be dedicated systems as well.

I'm "playing" with an UnRAID setup that seems to work pretty well ... I plan to try a WHS system next, and will likely use one of the two.
garycase2001 is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 08:35 PM
Member
 
leadman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post

Is it really necessary to get a server motherboard to get a PCI-E X8 to get these RAID cards to work? I have a consumer base motherboard with crossfire support. Will the second PCI-E X16 slot, but becomes electrically X8 when it's in crossfire mode work with these RAID cards? I would prefer to use my existing components like RAM instead of buying brand new components.

I'm using a GIGABYTE GA-EP45-DS3R mobo and it works fine if I put two Ciprico RaidCore controller into the PCI-E x16 slots and put an ATi Rage XL into a regular PCI slot. No complaints from the board and both raid controllers are detected.
leadman is offline  
Old 11-09-2008, 08:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
Sgt_Strider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 701
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by garycase2001 View Post

I don't have time to do a comprehensive list, but since you asked about WHS I'll add a few notes for all of the key options that may be helpful ...

(a) WHS => No fault tolerance; but can be set to maintain duplicates, which it will keep on different disks ... so if you do that then you won't lose anything with a single disk failure. It also doesn't stripe the data, so any data loss you do encounter is limited to data on the actual failed drive (not in a larger array).

(b) RAID-5 => Tolerates a single drive failure. Multiple drive failures => loss of the entire array. (there are exceptions if the drive doesn't totally fail ... but for planning purposes you should assume 2 failures = total loss).

(c) RAID-6 => Tolerates two drive failures. Otherwise like RAID-5.

(d) UnRAID => Tolerates a single drive failure. Does not stripe the data, so a dual drive failure will only result in loss of the data on the failed drives. Since it's the most-used drive, there's a good chance that a dual drive failure would include the parity drive ... if so you'd only lose one drive's worth of data (again, that's in a two-drive failure condition).

RAID-5 & RAID-6 give much better speeds, since they stripe the data. UnRAID and WHS will have read speeds equivalent to the individual drives. (Still likely plenty fast for what most folks are doing in this forum).

UnRAID requires a dedicated system just to maintain the array. Boots off a USB key. WHS has a lot of neat additional features -- automatic image backup of all your other windows machines; automatic duplication IF you have the disks and set it to do so; etc. RAID-5 & 6 controllers can be used in an existing system ... although for large arrays these are generally going to be dedicated systems as well.

I'm "playing" with an UnRAID setup that seems to work pretty well ... I plan to try a WHS system next, and will likely use one of the two.

I'm not sure if I understand you so I hope you can clarify this for me. Let's say that I have 10 drives installed. Will WHS recognize all 10 drives as 1 big volume and then I can decide what to do later? If this is how WHS works, then how can it duplicate the data into a drive and assume the drive that is holding the duplicates won't fail? What happens if that disk fails? The duplication feature just does what the name say right, duplicates data?
Sgt_Strider is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 12:34 AM
Newbie
 
startak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by miimura View Post

I was just poking around and noticed that Supermicro's nice 24 bay hot swap case SC846 is available in several versions. One version has a SAS expander built into the backplane. It's only $200 more than the one that has 24 SATA connectors on the backplane. I also noticed that hardware RAID 6 capable SAS controllers are pretty cheap compared to 24 port SATA hardware RAID 6 cards. So, I just pulled together some numbers.

SATA #1
SC846TQ-R900B $995
Areca ARC-1280ML $1280
SFF-8087-Discrete forward breakout cables (6x$16) $96
= $2,371

SATA #2
Norco RPC-4020 $290
Areca ARC-1280ML $1280
SFF-8087-Discrete forward breakout cables (5x$16) $80
= $1,650

SATA #3
Norco RPC-4020 $290
3Ware 9650SE-24M8 $1,110
3Ware M8-Discrete forward breakout cables (3x$28) $84
= $1,484

SAS #1
SC846E1-R900B $1200
Areca ARC-1680 $835
= $2,035

SAS #2
SC846E1-R900B $1200
3Ware 9690SA-4I $350
= $1,550

Which of these would you choose? In these storage server build threads it seems like lots of people are jumping on the Norco case. However, the Supermicro is really built better. So, to my thinking for the same price as a Norco and Areca 1280, I could have the Supermicro case and the 3Ware SAS. Very elegant and no need for dressing all those SATA cables.

Am I missing something? Why is the pure SATA setup better than the SAS with expanders when you're going to put a bunch of TB SATA disks in it?

- Mike

Before this thread existed, I was looking into building a server with Option SAS #1. I liked the ability to stack additional SC846E1-R900B to the system as needed. Now after reading and researching, I've decided to go with a Norco case and WHS. Now i'll be able to afford all the drives to fill up the case right away, and I'll worry about expansion when the time comes. At my current rate, I've projected that to be 18 months from now.

By the time it takes for me to fill up the 20x1.5 drives, there will be 2 or 3TB drives available. Those sizes will make the current raid cards all but useless for recovery with consumer grade drives. It currently takes about 80 hours to rebuild/add a 1TB drive to the array on the 1280ML at work. With a 3TB drive array that will take ~240 hours. Even if nothing goes wrong, you still have to wait a week to use your extra storage every time you grow your array.

The Supermicro is a very well built case, and would most peoples choice with an unlimited budget. However for a home server the extra 700 saved by going with the Norco goes a long way. The other thing is noise, Supermicro's cases sound like having a push vacuum running 24/7. Its fine if you can put it in the garage or hidden in the basement somewhere, but i'm in a condo so that's not an option.

Also I'm not sure about the 3Ware SAS card, but there are known compatibility problems with consumer grade SATA drives and the Areca 1680 cards.
startak is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 02:31 AM
Advanced Member
 
garycase2001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 548
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post

... Will WHS recognize all 10 drives as 1 big volume and then I can decide what to do later?

No, but you share the "pool" with folder names [e.g. "DVDs", "Music", etc.] and WHS manages what it puts where. You simply "tell" it which folders you want it to keep duplicate copies of -- and it will do so on different drives so you're protected against drive failure.
garycase2001 is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 07:29 AM
Member
 
smino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 32
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Someone asked the question about how do you figure out if any files have been corrupted by a bit error. I was just thinking about running an mdk checksum or create par files for my video files. Most of my video files range from 4-12GB in size with several little ones around the 1GB mark as well. I do alot of wedding photography and other video. Are there any threads on this topic?
I figure at least if the checksum do not work, you know which files were affected. When you have 1000's of files, it is easier to restore only those that have been affected.

What software would you use? and Why?
If Par files is the way to go, is there a way of keeping the par files on a separate external drive for safe keeping? (ie only pull it out when you believe something went wrong.)

Thoughts?
smino is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 01:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HappyFunBoater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,992
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by smino View Post

Someone asked the question about how do you figure out if any files have been corrupted by a bit error. I was just thinking about running an mdk checksum or create par files for my video files. Most of my video files range from 4-12GB in size with several little ones around the 1GB mark as well. I do alot of wedding photography and other video. Are there any threads on this topic?
I figure at least if the checksum do not work, you know which files were affected. When you have 1000's of files, it is easier to restore only those that have been affected.

What software would you use? and Why?
If Par files is the way to go, is there a way of keeping the par files on a separate external drive for safe keeping? (ie only pull it out when you believe something went wrong.)

Thoughts?

These are not bit errors within a file, caused by OS or application corruption, where checksums may be useful. These are bit errors within a disk sector. Simply reading all the sectors on the disk will find these sectors. If you have an optimal RAID array then the errors will be automatically corrected. Errors that aren't correctable will result in a media error, with the file name typically displayed by the OS or application.
HappyFunBoater is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 01:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
miimura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by smino View Post

Someone asked the question about how do you figure out if any files have been corrupted by a bit error. I was just thinking about running an mdk checksum or create par files for my video files. Most of my video files range from 4-12GB in size with several little ones around the 1GB mark as well. I do alot of wedding photography and other video. Are there any threads on this topic?
I figure at least if the checksum do not work, you know which files were affected. When you have 1000's of files, it is easier to restore only those that have been affected.

What software would you use? and Why?
If Par files is the way to go, is there a way of keeping the par files on a separate external drive for safe keeping? (ie only pull it out when you believe something went wrong.)

Thoughts?

Full function RAID 5 or 6 implementations have a "verify" funtion. It will read the entire volume in the background and compare the parity data is has in the RAID set with a newly calculated parity value. This can be scheduled to run automatically according to a defined schedule. I have my 3Ware cards run the background verify weekly. If you're using the storage professionally, as it seems you are, you should also have full backups that you can run a "compare" on to make sure that your backup is good and you don't have hidden read errors on your primary storage.

- Mike
miimura is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
miimura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by startak View Post

Before this thread existed, I was looking into building a server with Option SAS #1. I liked the ability to stack additional SC846E1-R900B to the system as needed. Now after reading and researching, I've decided to go with a Norco case and WHS. Now i'll be able to afford all the drives to fill up the case right away, and I'll worry about expansion when the time comes. At my current rate, I've projected that to be 18 months from now.

By using only the storage functions in WHS, you're giving up a lot compared to a full function SAS hardware RAID card. I know you don't think the two are comparable in functionality but someone reading this may think that you saved a lot of money and didn't give anything up.

Quote:
By the time it takes for me to fill up the 20x1.5 drives, there will be 2 or 3TB drives available. Those sizes will make the current raid cards all but useless for recovery with consumer grade drives. It currently takes about 80 hours to rebuild/add a 1TB drive to the array on the 1280ML at work. With a 3TB drive array that will take ~240 hours. Even if nothing goes wrong, you still have to wait a week to use your extra storage every time you grow your array.

You're right. Capacity expansion may take a long time but the array is available the whole time. You won't get to use the NEW CAPACITY until it's done but it has almost no impact on usability. I expanded a RAID 5 array from 3x 1TB disks to 4x 1TB and it took 6.5 days on a 3Ware 9550SX-8LP. 3Ware is very thorough in how it does the expansion and migration. My XP system crashed with a blue screen during the OCE and it just continued on after power cycling the machine. However, a rebuild to replace a failed disk only takes a couple hours on the same 4x 1TB RAID 5 set.

Quote:
The Supermicro is a very well built case, and would most peoples choice with an unlimited budget. However for a home server the extra 700 saved by going with the Norco goes a long way. The other thing is noise, Supermicro's cases sound like having a push vacuum running 24/7. Its fine if you can put it in the garage or hidden in the basement somewhere, but i'm in a condo so that's not an option.

Also I'm not sure about the 3Ware SAS card, but there are known compatibility problems with consumer grade SATA drives and the Areca 1680 cards.

A 20 to 24 bay hotswap rackmount case should make a lot of noise. It has to in order to keep that many disks cool. However, you point is well taken that Supermicro could reduce the noise and get equivalent airflow. Also, now that you mention it, Seagate 7200.11 drives are notably absent from the 3Ware 9690SE compatibility list. I don't know why they would have a 80GB 7200.9 on the list, but there you have it.

I have heard about compatibility problems with the Areca 1680ix that has native SATA ports, but I've not heard the same about the 1680 SAS version. Do you have some specific information? I haven't heard anything about the 1680 SAS card because not many people around here use the SAS version. That's why I brought it up - to start discussing SAS in a large home server.

- Mike
miimura is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 03:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kapone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,501
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Liked: 153
Why are we trying to compare WHS or Unraid or FlexRaid (or similar) with RAID based solutions?? It's an apples to oranges comparison. RAID is RAID, and all of these other solutions implement a storage architecture that is anything BUT RAID.

Each has it's strengths and weaknesses, and may certainly be the "right solution" for a given user, but they are not a RAID based solution. Yes, you can "kinda" use a RAID based volume as the underlying storage for these solutions, but that kind of defeats the purpose of these pooling solutions.
kapone is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 03:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lifespeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by miimura View Post

I have heard about compatibility problems with the Areca 1680ix that has native SATA ports, but I've not heard the same about the 1680 SAS version. Do you have some specific information? I haven't heard anything about the 1680 SAS card because not many people around here use the SAS version. That's why I brought it up - to start discussing SAS in a large home server.

- Mike

I was interested to read your SAS expander chassis comparison. Personally, I like the 4-in-one SAS cabling scheme, much neater. I personally do use an SAS RAID card (Highpoint 3250 with IOP341) connected to SATA drives. As far as I know, there is nothing preventing the use of SAS RAID cards with SATA drives.

I do plan to someday get a proper rack-mount server case that can hold more drives. At that time, I will be researching cases that provide SAS backplanes.

Can the SAS backplane have 'SAS' drive connectors and still connect to SATA drives? Or does it specifically need to be an 'SAS to SATA' backplane? The pinouts are identical, and the signaling is 'downward compatible' with respect to SATA drives, right?

Lifespeed
lifespeed is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 03:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
pclausen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Posts: 1,115
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 40
I finally got my replacement 1.5TB drive back from NewEgg today. Added it back into the array and I'm now watching it migrate from 7 to 8 drives. Things are moving along at a good clip and the media error count is still at 0.

I know a lot of folks are having issues with this drive (I'm following the thread on the seagate forum), but other than the one drive failing during the initial array creation, the other 7 drives have been stable and I must have ripped about 15 BD titles to it and streamed back at least that many for viewing as well. The only issue is that the drive activity LEDs stay lit when there is no activity, opposite of the expected behavior, but I can live with that.

With regards the bit error issue, I just upgraded the firmware on my Areca controller to 1.46 and noticed that I now have the ability to schedule volume checking! The feature might have been there all along, but for some reason I never noticed it before. I take it I would want it to carry out both of the following error corrective actions?

pclausen is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 04:38 PM
Member
 
ryan.w's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well I just lost 4.5tb of movies... had a Raid 5 array of 8 1tb drives on an Adaptec 3805 Card, was actually going to move all the data to a few 1.5tbs drives I just purchased along with moving it to Unraid.

Well randomly a drive dropped out of the array. No problem could still get data off of the array right? WRONG, Another drive dropped out a few minutes later. Failed array! I took out one of the "failed" drives and tested it on a separate system... perfectly fine!

If anyone wants to give some advice on recovery, that would be great!

Just had to vent about my worries that came true with my Real Raid array.
ryan.w is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 04:45 PM
Newbie
 
startak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by miimura View Post

By using only the storage functions in WHS, you're giving up a lot compared to a full function SAS hardware RAID card. I know you don't think the two are comparable in functionality but someone reading this may think that you saved a lot of money and didn't give anything up.

I will clarify by saying that my server will be used solely to store ripped CD's and DVD's; relatively easy to replace data, and whose content will only be accessed by one client machine at a time. This server does not need the throughput/performance and high availability that RAID offers, and I am willing to give up the scalability that SAS supports as well. I will however miss the handy web interface to monitor drive status and temperatures.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miimura View Post

You're right. Capacity expansion may take a long time but the array is available the whole time. You won't get to use the NEW CAPACITY until it's done but it has almost no impact on usability. I expanded a RAID 5 array from 3x 1TB disks to 4x 1TB and it took 6.5 days on a 3Ware 9550SX-8LP. 3Ware is very thorough in how it does the expansion and migration. My XP system crashed with a blue screen during the OCE and it just continued on after power cycling the machine. However, a rebuild to replace a failed disk only takes a couple hours on the same 4x 1TB RAID 5 set.

Good to know that OCE will continue after a BSOD. I do it very rarely, and usually just add a whole new array instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by miimura View Post

I have heard about compatibility problems with the Areca 1680ix that has native SATA ports, but I've not heard the same about the 1680 SAS version. Do you have some specific information? I haven't heard anything about the 1680 SAS card because not many people around here use the SAS version. That's why I brought it up - to start discussing SAS in a large home server.

- Mike

It's my understanding that Areca's 1680 series are all SAS controllers. SAS was designed to be cross compatible with SATA. However Areca only officially supports 'nearline' SATA drives ie. Seagate's ES.2 series on their SAS cards. There is a wealth of information on these cards at 2cpu.

At this time I don't think SAS drives make sense for a home media server because of their high price and low capacities. Seagate do have a 1TB SAS drive but it's just the ES.2 series with a SAS interface, and it currently retails for $300 here in Canada.
startak is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 04:53 PM
Newbie
 
startak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt_Strider View Post

Are you saying that WHS have not fault tolerance? Meaning I can lose data if at least one drive dies?

WHS does have a feature called 'folder duplication', it will mirror specified folders to a second drive. Obviously that means you need to have enough free space available. It offers a similar functionality to RAID 1 but without the performance gain.
startak is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 05:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MiBz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by pclausen View Post



I just upgraded the firmware on my Areca controller to 1.46

Thanks for the update - hope everything works out ok with your Seagate array.
Seagate issued a statement to TR admitting the firmware issue with these drives, but downplayed it bigtime.


I was thinking of upgrading my 1261ML(1.45) to the latest 1.46
Any other benefits you've noticed to the 1.46 firmware ?
MiBz is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 05:14 PM
Member
 
Dan_B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Lifespeed:

In the last server I setup, I had 16 SATA drives connected to a backplane that had SFF-8087 to SFF-8087 cables (AKA Mini-SAS) to connect back to the RAID controller; to get past all of the technical jargon, there were only 4 cables between the backplane and the RAID controller for 16 drives; much cleaner than all of the other cabling you normally have to do in the absence of a backplane. I hope that helps to make some sense of your question

-Dan
Dan_B is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MiBz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by miimura View Post


By using only the storage functions in WHS, you're giving up a lot compared to a full function SAS hardware RAID card. Mike

Hi Mike,

Would really like to hear your thoughts on what you'd be giving up with WHS as opposed to a SAS hardware raid solution.
MiBz is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 05:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MiBz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,093
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by startak View Post


I will however miss the handy web interface to monitor drive status and temperatures.

WHS console's Disk Management tab shows drive status, temp and data activity for each drive, so I don't think you'll be missing anything.
MiBz is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 06:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lifespeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,511
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiBz View Post

Hi Mike,

Would really like to hear your thoughts on what you'd be giving up with WHS as opposed to a SAS hardware raid solution.

Not Mike here, but I'll answer anyway.

1) performance

2) space-efficient use of the HDDs

3) transparent to the OS, as opposed to a function of the OS

Lifespeed
lifespeed is offline  
Old 11-10-2008, 11:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
miimura's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Cupertino, CA
Posts: 1,345
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifespeed View Post

Not Mike here, but I'll answer anyway.

1) performance

2) space-efficient use of the HDDs

3) transparent to the OS, as opposed to a function of the OS

I couldn't have said it better myself. Ok, well, maybe I'd say:

2) space-efficient protection from hard disk failure.

- Mike
miimura is offline  
 

Tags
Computers
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off