FlexRaid alternative? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 03:28 PM
Newbie
 
Smurf-IV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
On Windows - SnapRaid has a GUI called Elucidate
For Drive pooling there is Liquesce
Smurf-IV is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 04:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteboy714 View Post

Ha d alook at snapraid but it looks harder to set up than flexraid. Anyone know if the GUI can be used for setup? Seems like this needs to be done with command line.

snapraid can be set up with a simple text file, only 10 or 20 lines long (depending on how many drives you have and any exclusions). snapraid comes with example configuration files for windows and linux which you can just edit to customize for your system.

I have never used the GUI, since it is so easy and quick to setup with the simple text file configuration, but I guess you can set it up with the GUI. Why not try it both ways (text and GUI) and see which you prefer? It only takes a few minutes for the text file, and I guess the GUI does not take much longer.
jim2100 is offline  
post #33 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 04:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 16
I was just a little worried about my data if I screwed something up. I know this is unlikely. I didn't know about the sample files. I actually haven't even downloaded it yet. Just looking up some info.
whiteboy714 is offline  
post #34 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 04:53 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteboy714 View Post

I was just a little worried about my data if I screwed something up. I know this is unlikely. I didn't know about the sample files. I actually haven't even downloaded it yet. Just looking up some info.

As long as you don't run the "snapraid fix" command, then snapraid will not change or delete any of your data. You can safely run "snapraid sync" or "snapraid check" with no risk. All it will do is read your data drives, and create parity and content files in the locations specified (but will not delete any files or folders already in those locations).
jim2100 is offline  
post #35 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 05:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

As long as you don't run the "snapraid fix" command, then snapraid will not change or delete any of your data. You can safely run "snapraid sync" or "snapraid check" with no risk. All it will do is read your data drives, and create parity and content files in the locations specified (but will not delete any files or folders already in those locations).

Thanks. I'll give it a go.
whiteboy714 is offline  
post #36 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Kind of confused at the difference between "content" and "disk" in the text file.

I: is my parity drive.

The drives I want to protect are F,G,H,J and L.

Any idea how to do this in the config?
whiteboy714 is offline  
post #37 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 06:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by whiteboy714 View Post

Kind of confused at the difference between "content" and "disk" in the text file.

I: is my parity drive.

The drives I want to protect are F,G,H,J and L.

Any idea how to do this in the config?

The parity file (keyword 'parity', and 'q-parity' for dual) contains the parity data that can be used for data reconstruction. The content file (key word 'content') contains checksums (aka, hashes) which can be used to verify the integrity of your data. If you have single parity, you must have at least 2 copies of the content file. But the content file is much smaller than the parity file. The parity files and content files are generated by snapraid ('snapraid sync'), and they must be specified as actual files in the configuration file (not just pathnames).

The data drives (keyword 'disk') are the locations of the data you want to generate parity and checksum data for. They specify pathnames to your data. But you can also store content files on the data disks (v1.8 of snapraid will automatically exclude the content files from generating parity data).

For a single parity drive, you probably want something like this (the excludes are copied from the example file, you may want something different there):

parity I:\\parity.par
content F:\\content.lst
content G:\\content.lst

disk d1 F:\\
disk d2 G:\\
disk d3 H:\\
disk d4 J:\\
disk d5 L:\\

exclude *.bak
exclude *.unrecoverable
exclude Thumbs.db
exclude \\$RECYCLE.BIN
exclude \\System Volume Information

block_size 256
jim2100 is offline  
post #38 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 06:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
nexus99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Pulled the trigger on a 4th 2GB drive. Will be building them into a 6TB raid 5 solution to hold photos/personal files/video/TV etc. Will be using the raid controller on the system board.
nexus99 is offline  
post #39 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 07:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

The parity file (keyword 'parity', and 'q-parity' for dual) contains the parity data that can be used for data reconstruction. The content file (key word 'content') contains checksums (aka, hashes) which can be used to verify the integrity of your data. If you have single parity, you must have at least 2 copies of the content file. But the content file is much smaller than the parity file. The parity files and content files are generated by snapraid ('snapraid sync'), and they must be specified as actual files in the configuration file (not just pathnames).

The data drives (keyword 'disk') are the locations of the data you want to generate parity and checksum data for. They specify pathnames to your data. But you can also store content files on the data disks (v1.8 of snapraid will automatically exclude the content files from generating parity data).

For a single parity drive, you probably want something like this (the excludes are copied from the example file, you may want something different there):

parity I:\\parity.par
content F:\\content.lst
content G:\\content.lst

disk d1 F:\\
disk d2 G:\\
disk d3 H:\\
disk d4 J:\\
disk d5 L:\\

exclude *.bak
exclude *.unrecoverable
exclude Thumbs.db
exclude \\$RECYCLE.BIN
exclude \\System Volume Information

block_size 256

Thank you very much thats much clearer than the example. Sounds like I'm good to go. I was stuck on the content thing but that totally makes sense. Much appreciated!
whiteboy714 is offline  
post #40 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 08:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 39
I would like to use FlexRaid since it runs on Windows and the developer is very ambitious, he recently started a new project called NZFS which aims to recreate ZFS in some way, and FlexRaid has a lot of options and seems very full featured.

But these are also its cons. Its a 1 man project and I really have no idea when it will have a final release or be stable.

unRaid has very different goals - it just does 1 thing (even though there are plugins for things like torrents etc, its primarily just a file server), and development isn't nearly as hectic, but this means its more stable.
Defcon is offline  
post #41 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 09:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Thanks jim2100 I am syncing my drives now!
whiteboy714 is offline  
post #42 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 09:08 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,123
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 193 Post(s)
Liked: 1003
hardware RAID > Software RAID

Simply better at everything.

That is all.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is offline  
post #43 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 09:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
whiteboy714's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,602
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

hardware RAID > Software RAID

Simply better at everything.

That is all.

Not true. Its already been discussed in this thread.
whiteboy714 is offline  
post #44 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 09:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Lars99's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

hardware RAID > Software RAID

Simply better at everything.

That is all.

Certainly not true.
Lars99 is offline  
post #45 of 133 Old 03-13-2012, 10:45 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Don't listen to Mfusick... He's lying!
cybrsage is offline  
post #46 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 07:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Darin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 5,999
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

hardware RAID > Software RAID

Simply better at everything.

It's better at some things, just not things that are important for a home media server.

You need to use the right tool for the job.

My dual Rythmik Servo sub project (actually quad now, need to update page)
HDM format neutral thanks to the pricing wars of the '07 xmas shopping season :)
Darin is offline  
post #47 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 08:14 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by nexus99 View Post

Pulled the trigger on a 4th 2GB drive. Will be building them into a 6TB raid 5 solution to hold photos/personal files/video/TV etc. Will be using the raid controller on the system board.

Be careful, you can lose all your data if your motherboard dies...
cybrsage is offline  
post #48 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 10:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JoshDorhyke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

False (implied) comparison.

It is easier to not set up drive pooling (compared to setting up drive pooling).

The choice is between the downside of setting up multiple volumes and the downside of setting up and running drive pooling. Either choice has downsides.


unRAID makes it very simple to set up a user share, which is the equivalent of drive pooling. You can also very easily use the server disk by disk for maintaining/uploading files and use the user share for viewing in your media players. Personally, I think it would be dumb to point XBMC to multiple network shares for each disk compared to just pointing it to a user share.
JoshDorhyke is offline  
post #49 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 11:10 AM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshDorhyke View Post

unRAID makes it very simple to set up a user share, which is the equivalent of drive pooling. You can also very easily use the server disk by disk for maintaining/uploading files and use the user share for viewing in your media players.

unRAID takes a LONG time to set up if you already have HDDs with data on them. You have to copy all your data over to unRAID at speeds slower than the write speed of your HDDs, which is a major pain. A huge waste of time.

SnapRAID is much less restrictive.
jim2100 is offline  
post #50 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JoshDorhyke's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

unRAID takes a LONG time to set up if you already have HDDs with data on them. You have to copy all your data over to unRAID at speeds slower than the write speed of your HDDs, which is a major pain. A huge waste of time.

SnapRAID is much less restrictive.

What does that have to do with the usefulness of the user share or drive pooling function?

The problem you're complaining about is one of migrating to unRAID from another system. Similar issues can occur when moving to or from a RAID5 or RAID6 array or from or to say a Drobo.
JoshDorhyke is offline  
post #51 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 02:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshDorhyke View Post

What does that have to do with the usefulness of the user share or drive pooling function?

Well, in your own words, it is "dumb" to spend a few minutes entering into XBMC the pathnames of the volumes where you have stored your media files.

So, what word would you use to describe spending hours or days copying media files from your existing collection onto an unRAID server?
jim2100 is offline  
post #52 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 03:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
video321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 1,589
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Let's make this simple, jim2100-

Not all players, whether hardware or software-based, can "pool" multiple paths. I have a couple WDTV Live players which can't and that means hitting multiple paths to find the movie you're looking for - not exactly WAF. As I mentioned above, I use junctions to get around that limitation so every movie is listed under a single "Movies" share.
video321 is offline  
post #53 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 03:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by video321 View Post

I have a couple WDTV Live players which can't and that means hitting multiple paths to find the movie you're looking for - not exactly WAF.

In which case it makes sense to use some sort of merging or pooling. But pooling is available with any of the systems (SR, FR, UR), so it is not a big factor in deciding between them.
jim2100 is offline  
post #54 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 03:29 PM
Advanced Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 39
All the HTPC frontend's (XBMC, MP, MB) support multiple media sources so pooling is not needed. I don't know about standalone players. We should distinguish between true drive pooling and simply merging contents of different folders.

1. Drive pooling is when multiple drives/sources appear as a single source, and you can read/write to it without worrying about the physical location, and the files are balanced across drives as needed.

2. And then you have something like Libraries in Windows 7, junctions/symlinks, multiple paths in a XBMC source etc. All these will let you see all the content as 1 folder, but it doesn't actually manage the data for you or handle drives getting full.

For most people #2 is more than enough I think.
Defcon is offline  
post #55 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
Defcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

hardware RAID > Software RAID

Simply better at everything.

That is all.

HW Raid is a recipe for disaster in a home environment IMO. Raid doesn't provide backup, all it gives is the illusion of safety. Using expensive HW Raid just to get drive pooling seems like massive overkill.
Defcon is offline  
post #56 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
jim2100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 762
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post

We should distinguish between true drive pooling and simply merging contents of different folders.

Good point.
jim2100 is offline  
post #57 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 10:00 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshDorhyke View Post

What does that have to do with the usefulness of the user share or drive pooling function?

The problem you're complaining about is one of migrating to unRAID from another system. Similar issues can occur when moving to or from a RAID5 or RAID6 array or from or to say a Drobo.

The OP said he is looking to migrate from another system...so it is very useful info.

Unraid being linux is the main reason I passed it by way back when I first heard of it. If I decided to stop using it, I would have to migrate my data back to Windows in order to have access to it again.
cybrsage is offline  
post #58 of 133 Old 03-14-2012, 10:02 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defcon View Post

All the HTPC frontend's (XBMC, MP, MB) support multiple media sources so pooling is not needed. I don't know about standalone players. We should distinguish between true drive pooling and simply merging contents of different folders.

1. Drive pooling is when multiple drives/sources appear as a single source, and you can read/write to it without worrying about the physical location, and the files are balanced across drives as needed.

2. And then you have something like Libraries in Windows 7, junctions/symlinks, multiple paths in a XBMC source etc. All these will let you see all the content as 1 folder, but it doesn't actually manage the data for you or handle drives getting full.

For most people #2 is more than enough I think.


I only need to protect movies, so I manually put the movie folder (containing actual folder content or an ISO) where I want it to go, so I have 100% control over its location. I then put a shortcut to the folder on one drive in a folder named "Movies". I point everything to the movies folder and it appears as it all the movies are actually there.

Since I am only ever ripping one movie at a time, and only now and again when I buy a new one, the 3 or 5 seconds it takes to create the shortcut is meaningless.
cybrsage is offline  
post #59 of 133 Old 03-15-2012, 04:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 7,054
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Liked: 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

The OP said he is looking to migrate from another system...so it is very useful info.

Unraid being linux is the main reason I passed it by way back when I first heard of it. If I decided to stop using it, I would have to migrate my data back to Windows in order to have access to it again.

Or you could install suitable drivers on your Windows PC and read (and I believe write) the contents without migration.

And the comments about migration to unRAID at being at less than disk write speeds is less of an issue if you use a cache drive (which unRAID supports) and then let unRAID copy the material across in the background.

I migrated 5TB of NTFS drives from a Windows set-up to unRAID about 2 years ago and have never looked back. I now have 14TB of media stored on my unRAID set-up and I'm very happy with it.

User Shares are a huge benefit if you use hardware players like WDTV Live, Popcorn Hour etc., as being able to point to a single 'Movies' or 'Recorded TV' mount point makes things a lot simpler.

YMMV - but I am very glad that I went with unRAID. Two years of it 'just working' has been great for me.
sneals2000 is offline  
post #60 of 133 Old 03-15-2012, 05:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
captain_video's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 3,645
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 120 Post(s)
Liked: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by sneals2000 View Post

YMMV - but I am very glad that I went with unRAID. Two years of it 'just working' has been great for me.

And that's what really counts in the end, isn't it?
captain_video is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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