How long should 20TB of full drives take to initialize flexraid ????? (help me with basic math) - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 11:28 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,574
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 309
Also, I mostly chose flexraid over storage spaces to keep a parity drive isolated from the storage pool. I'm a closet enviromentalist and like to know my drives are spun down throughout the work day and late night. Storage spaces could have worked, but flexraid just looked nicer to me with built-in pooling, notifications, and reporting
Dark_Slayer is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 11:37 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
I'm not sure anyone is trying say Flexraid isn't good for what it does.

I think he's just pointing out where ZFS is superior.

It's ok to acknowledge that and still enjoy Flexraid.

I do.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #63 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 11:41 AM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Not sure what makes FlexRAID an inferior product.
amarshonarbangla is offline  
post #64 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 12:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
inferior is a strong word.

Flexraid is not inferior. It just is what it is.

ZFS is superior to flexraid in many aspects. Performance, Data Rot, etc....

ZFS is a more serious solution. It makes sense for someone who is less noob, and has a larger library or more serious system.

Flexraid is a better simple media server solution. WHS or windows 7- on a server or just in an all in one HTPC. It's great.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #65 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 01:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Puwaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
I've used and loved FlexRAID. I gave away my license for free to another user here. It gave me piece-of-mind while I used it, but the more my data has grown and the more I came to depend on uptime, I realized I had outgrown its abilities.

For me, ZFS does have superior features, and it's shortcomings are acceptable to me as the stability, feature-set and production-level ability are far ahead of anything else I've used.

It's not for everyone and most people will never see a need for it until the market shifts in favor of it.

I'll make a bold prediction here now: In 5 years the vast majority of self-built home servers will be running ZFS, Storage Spaces (Microsoft will fix the problems), BTRFS, or an NZFS-like product.
Puwaha is offline  
post #66 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 01:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
What exactly is NZFS and how is it any different or better than ZFS ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #67 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 02:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

What exactly is NZFS and how is it any different or better than ZFS ?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1457880/a-first-look-at-nzfs-and-replacing-unraid-with-nzfs-s-transparent-raid-traid/0_40#post_22956552

Ask and you shall receive.

Nice write up there.

Let's make it a tradition and let me introduce to you NZFS!
NZFS stands for Next-Generation Zion File System.
More detailed information will be provided in the weeks to come as NZFS is currently in private beta testing.
Nonetheless, here is a first look: http://www.openegg.org/2013/02/12/a-first-look-at-nzfs-and-replacing-unraid-with-nzfss-transparent-raid-traid/
Quote:
Taking the use case approach
NZFS is vast in features so much so that we will approach each feature as a use case in order to avoid overwhelming the potential user.

Use case 1: Using the Transparent RAID feature of NZFS as a replacement for unRAID
Transparent RAID
Imagine a RAID system where you can take any one drive from the RAID and have that drive fully readable in another system without the other drives part of the RAID.
Then, imagine a RAID system where losing more drive than the tolerance level will not cause you to lose all your data beyond the drives lost.
Well, it is here. NZFS’s tRAID: a Storage Technology Breakthrough.

Transparent RAID has the following features:
Independent disks with transparent dedicated parity
Can tolerate X drives failures, where X is the number of drives the user has configured for parity.
Each drive can be formatted with its own independent file system.
Each drive can be pulled and read in another system by itself.
In case of failure past the tolerance level, surviving drives are fully readable/writable.

tRAID vs unRAID
Transparent RAID is a better version of unRAID that runs on any modern version of Windows and Linux.

Advantages over unRAID:
Multi-Parity support
- Running a large array with just one parity is simply foolish. unRAID is limited to one parity drive.
- Hard drives tend to fail in batches and we tend to buy drives in lots, which almost always come from the same batch.
- When you lose a drive, chances are great that you might lose another drive shortly after if they are all from the same manufacturing batch.
- Worst, RAID recovery tend to put greater stress on your drives and that’s the time when another drive might fail.
- Improve your protection level and recovery chance by using two or more parity.
NZFS runs on any modern Windows or Linux OS
- unRAID runs on a non-standard OS and users are limited to the hardware its customized OS supports.
- By running on your favorite OS, NZFS let’s you build a storage box that can run other applications such that you have a more complete and usable system.
- These value added applications are essential to running an effective storage box.
NZFS is more future proof
- The day the developer of unRAID is no longer able to support new hardware, you are stuck.
- With NZFS, you can upgrade your hardware as your favorite OS evolves.
No cache drive required with tRAID (no gimmicks)
- unRAID requires you to add a cache drive (along with all the many issues that go along with that) in order to achieve adequate performance.
- No such thing with NZFS. An NZFS Transparent RAID use no gimmicks and has high performance out of the box. No cache drive. No additional way to losing your data.
- A cache drive as used in unRAID leaves your data vulnerable! Yikes!
Rich UI
- The client application for managing your NZFS hosts is a very rich and slick UI that makes management a breeze and keeps you from making mistakes. There is nothing more frustrating than something that is cryptic to manage or a UI that can lead you to doing the wrong thing and lose your data in the process. Taking cues from the interface we designed for FlexRAID, the NZFS client interface is a fresh and intuitive new approach.
- You time is valuable. The NZFS UI keeps it simple for users that want simplicity while giving users that like to tinker something to tinker with.
- A single client install can manage an unlimited number of hosts.
- unRAID relies on its user community to create unsupported UI plugins to restyle the default UI into something usable. Managing your precious data with an unsupported UI modification? Yikes!
NZFS is far more innovative
- Remember that it is only one feature of NZFS that is a complete and better replacement for unRAID. When you add the many other features, you start to realize that the people behind NZFS have a far greater expertise in storage technologies.
- unRAID is struggling to innovate and is frankly dépassé.
- The people behind NZFS are true storage data architects with advanced mathematics knowledge unlike the guy behind unRAID who was just lucky to turn some free open source code he found into a product.
- It is our belief that he does not truly understand the free code he has in order to innovate past what was implemented for him.
- Who do you want to invest into? The innovative architects who understand and are implementing every facet of their products from the ground up or the guy with the free code he can’t really improve?
Our innovative minds think completely outside of the box.
- When we first released FlexRAID with its RAID-F approach (RAID over File System), people were thinking it was because we could not implement standard RAID.
- It took time for the community to catch up and understand the real value in the RAID-F approach to data protection.
- Standard RAID is trivial for us to implement and we don’t do the “me too” thing unless we bring something more to the table.
- Our products are either a complete departure or a vast improvement over what is already out there. Otherwise, why bother?
Note that unRAID is a very small fish to fry in NZFS’s quest for dominance (still, small fish get fried first).
- NZFS is really going after ZFS and products from Data Robotic, NetApp, Synology.
- unRAID just happens to be a small and unfortunate roadkill.

We brought you Snapshot RAID & RAID-F (others tried to copy), Storage Pooling (others copied), and now we are bringing you NZFS.
Can the copycats keep up?
Intrigued yet? Well, we are just getting started.

NZFS is currently in private beta testing.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #68 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 03:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,215
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Liked: 195
This thread got derailed (i.e. Assassinated rolleyes.gif) in a hurry.

To help the original poster, Google is crazy convenient for units arithmetic. Search for: 6 * 3TB / 85 MBps
It handles the prefixes and can distinguish (B)ytes from (b)its
EricN is online now  
post #69 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,574
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 195 Post(s)
Liked: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricN View Post

This thread got derailed (i.e. Assassinated rolleyes.gif) in a hurry.

To help the original poster, Google is crazy convenient for units arithmetic. Search for: 6 * 3TB / 85 MBps
It handles the prefixes and can distinguish (B)ytes from (b)its

Unfortunately that doesn't help because there is more going on, and neither of our similarly sized arrays took that long to build a parity. That's not the appropriate calculation for the amount of time the parity will take to write. I don't really know what the appropriate calculation is, but if you consider that building the parity requires a complete write of your parity drive then the MINIMUM time could be calculated by Dividing your parity drive's size by throughput rate. It could take longer assuming that there is any parity calculation lag prior to parity writes

Mfusick, I assume your parity was 3TB, and you posted 85 MBps rate? Your minimum time should be (3 TB) / (85 MBps) = 10.28 hours

My parity drive is 4TB with a 105 MBps, giving me around 11.09 hours (pretty close)

This is another one of those think-group threads where a lot of information can be thrown around
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #70 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 03:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
Your right ^

It took a night and was done in the morning.

I had 20TB of drives.

Only one 2TB. The rest were 3TB. 6x3=18TB plus one 2TB WD green that had non HD media on it.

It took less than 12 hours. It was done when I woke up. 10 hours sounds about right.

Not every drive was full. Each one had about 200GB free space each. So that factors in too.

"rate" is determined by the slowest read of your slowest drive (My 2TB green) and the time is how long it takes at that rate to fill your parity drive at it's write speed (mine was a WD green 3TB)

I wasn't setting any records in speed but it finished a rather large 20TB array in a single night- which was perfectly acceptable.

I am not sure how much faster it will be when I swap out my parity for a 3TB Seagate 7200.14 and remove the green 2TB. We shall see.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #71 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 03:47 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricN View Post

This thread got derailed (i.e. Assassinated rolleyes.gif) in a hurry.

To help the original poster, Google is crazy convenient for units arithmetic. Search for: 6 * 3TB / 85 MBps
It handles the prefixes and can distinguish (B)ytes from (b)its

I like to think I keep things relevant and appropriate.

Discussing parity "performance" just isn't that important.

My opinion of course.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

assassin is offline  
post #72 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 03:49 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Your right ^

It took a night and was done in the morning.

I had 20TB of drives.

Only one 2TB. The rest were 3TB. 6x3=18TB plus one 2TB WD green that had non HD media on it.

It took less than 12 hours. It was done when I woke up. 10 hours sounds about right.

Not every drive was full. Each one had about 200GB free space each. So that factors in too.

"rate" is determined by the slowest read of your slowest drive (My 2TB green) and the time is how long it takes at that rate to fill your parity drive at it's write speed (mine was a WD green 3TB)

I wasn't setting any records in speed but it finished a rather large 20TB array in a single night- which was perfectly acceptable.

I am not sure how much faster it will be when I swap out my parity for a 3TB Seagate 7200.14 and remove the green 2TB. We shall see.

Have you ever looked up the differences in speed on transferring large files? I think you would be surprised how "fast" your "slow" green hard drive is.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

assassin is offline  
post #73 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:00 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
Your picking a fight I don't want.

But I don't need to look anything up.

I can see clearly in my Terracopy program the MB/sec speed at which reads and writes are done.

I've copied to and from my SSD on various drives testing this.

Seagate 7200.14 is aprox on average 50MB/sec faster real world for me.

I own 7 of these drives. All seven of them are consistently quicker than my 6 WD greens drives.

I have tested 2TB and 3TB greens.

Hitachi and my Samsung RAID0 can hang with the Seagates ok but the Green drives can not.

I copy 25GB movie folders and bluray MKV often. I know how fast all my drives work.

I never once said it was unacceptable. I was actually pleased with the performance and said so.

I had a slow 2TB green and a 3TB green for my parity. It was perfectly acceptable.

And yes - you can stream multiple streams from a green drive wink.gif (I know your dying to say that right ?? )






You do hang on single points and dismiss others. I know the point your trying to make and I don't disagree with it or you.

You just need to be accepting of the fact that to some of us here- The speed difference or time saved with a faster HDD is appreciated regardless if the slower drive is still fully capable.
I am actually replacing my green drives because of trust and reliability more than lack of speed. Selling them off on ebay under MFG warranty gets me near what I paid for them and the cost per GB of the 7200.14 is attractive in that I can gain additional space for very little $ out of pocket.

I've had 4 out of 5 Green drives fail on me already in the last two years. Sure RMA replacement is easy but I actually lost a 3TB green full of bluray MKVS that was not backed up. I remember you commenting in that thread.

Some of my greens exhibit a clicking sound sometimes. Scares the crap out of me.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #74 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:03 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 50 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Your picking a fight I don't want.

But I don't need to look anything up.

I can see clearly in my Terracopy program the MB/sec speed at which reads and writes are done.

I've copied to and from my SSD on various drives testing this.

Seagate 7200.14 is aprox on average 50MB/sec faster real world for me.

I own 7 of these drives. All seven of them are consistently quicker than my 6 WD greens drives.

I have tested 2TB and 3TB greens.

Hitachi and my Samsung RAID0 can hang with the Seagates ok but the Green drives can not.

I copy 25GB movie folders and bluray MKV often. I know how fast all my drives work.

I never once said it was unacceptable. I was actually pleased with the performance and said so.

I had a slow 2TB green and a 3TB green for my parity. It was perfectly acceptable.

And yes - you can stream multiple streams from a green drive wink.gif (I know your dying to say that right ?? )






You do hang on single points and dismiss others. I know the point your trying to make and I don't disagree with it or you.

You just need to be accepting of the fact that to some of us here- The speed difference or time saved with a faster HDD is appreciated regardless if the slower drive is still fully capable.
I am actually replacing my green drives because of trust and reliability more than lack of speed. Selling them off on ebay under MFG warranty gets me near what I paid for them and the cost per GB of the 7200.14 is attractive in that I can gain additional space for very little $ out of pocket.

I've had 4 out of 5 Green drives fail on me already in the last two years. Sure RMA replacement is easy but I actually lost a 3TB green full of bluray MKVS that was not backed up. I remember you commenting in that thread.

Some of my greens exhibit a clicking sound sometimes. Scares the crap out of me.

No real reason for all of that. It was a single question.

I am getting really burned out on this place. Time to take an extended break.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

assassin is offline  
post #75 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:16 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Puwaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

What exactly is NZFS and how is it any different or better than ZFS ?

I'll definitely keep my eye on NZFS, as Brahim makes a bold claim.

In storage (as with most things electronic) you get 3 options:

1. Fast
2. Cheap
3. Reliable.

You can only ever pick two.

Brahim says you will be able to acheive all three, which really has never been done before. If he can crack the code, more power to him.
Puwaha is offline  
post #76 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:19 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

No real reason for all of that. It was a single question.

I am getting really burned out on this place. Time to take an extended break.

I apologize.

I misinterpreted your comment. It happens.

You'll never offend me. I have thick skin. So no worries.

I should say sorry to you. I did not mean to be "aggressive" with my words. lol.

biggrin.gif

It's all good. I wish what we are debating was actually important sometimes. If I take a step back and look we are debating the speed a HDD copies. Wow we really are nerds I guess.

On topic,

I've seen about 100MB/sec on a new empty GREEN WD. It drops down to about 85MB/sec when it's used and in play. In a horrible world I get 65/MB sec, usually once the drive is full of movies.

My 7200RPMs go about 150MB/sec down to about 100MB/sec when old/full.

I could live or make due with a HDD that copies or writes at 40MB/sec. (I own a few older smaller ones like this)
My only point was while you can live with anything- why would you want to accept less than pure awesomeness ???

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #77 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Puwaha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post

Have you ever looked up the differences in speed on transferring large files? I think you would be surprised how "fast" your "slow" green hard drive is.

Sequential speed is usually the fastest metric for a mechanical hard drive, yes.

Another feature of ZFS, is that it only tries to write files sequentially, storing everything up in RAM before committing it to disk. This keeps write speeds as fast as possible for the mechanical hard drives... since write speeds are usually slower than read speeds.
Puwaha is offline  
post #78 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:21 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puwaha View Post

I'll definitely keep my eye on NZFS, as Brahim makes a bold claim.

In storage (as with most things electronic) you get 3 options:

1. Fast
2. Cheap
3. Reliable.

You can only ever pick two.

Brahim says you will be able to acheive all three, which really has never been done before. If he can crack the code, more power to him.

My preference in order would be:

Reliable #1
Cheap #2
Fast #3

All three is certainly nice.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #79 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puwaha View Post

Sequential speed is usually the fastest metric for a mechanical hard drive, yes.

I used a green drive (2TB WD) in a HTPC for a friend as an OS. Only HDD in the machine.

It was an Asus board with i3 2100 CPU. 8GB DDR3. GD05 case. Nice build (or so I thought at the time a year ago)

OMG was it a total pig.

P.

I.

G.

PIG.


I never got so frustrated with a crappier machine in my life.

Absolutely horrible. I'd rather light my head on fire and put it out with a sledge hammer than operate that crapbox.

I can't stress my disdain for that machine enough. Why ? Because a WD GREEN HDD is so crappy and slow as an OS drive it makes the machine almost unusable.

Random 4k reads and the normal metrics that translate into OS snappy feel are just horrible on those drives.

So while the metric for a seq copy paste might be ok- the seek time and the Random I/O performance is totally unacceptable as an OS drive.

I know I am snob and the slowest PC I use ever is SSD based, and my "normal" is a faster i5/SSD combo or higher but honestly I can't see anyone using that machine daily.

It took so long to install simple things or do windows updates.

Sorry to go off on a tirade but I thought it related to the comment you made about how SEQUENTIAL metrics are the highest for most HDD's (my point being the non seq limit performance to unacceptable level). I also though since we are talking about GREEN DRIVE speeds- it might be relevant.

Friends don't let friends use HDD for an OS.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #80 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:32 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
amarshonarbangla,

Do you really have 60TB of media ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #81 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
amarshonarbangla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,239
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

amarshonarbangla,

Do you really have 60TB of media ?

Yes.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
No lol. I was just giving an example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amarshonarbangla View Post

Nightly backups of all the computers in the house, media, and a slew of other things ^_^

(This is all imaginary and hypothetical btw)
amarshonarbangla is offline  
post #82 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 04:47 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
lol. Well played.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #83 of 85 Old 02-12-2013, 05:52 PM
Advanced Member
 
spectrumbx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 818
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

Ok...

So I dropped out three drives (GREEN DRIVES) and I want to initialize my server with my Seagate 3TB and 1 Green WD 2TB. My Green 3TB WD is my Parity drive but this is temp.

So I basically have:

Seagate 3TB#1
Seagate 3TB#2
Seagate 3TB#3
Seagate 3TB#4
Seagate 3TB#5
Seagate 3TB#6
WD 2TB
WD 3TB PRU

Total is 20,000 GB right ?? (20TB) 3000+3000+3000+3000+3000+3000+2000 ( give or take for 1024 thing)

So I am watching it tick by and the lowest I see the Parity Computation process speed reach is about 85MB/s

So that means it's processing data at 85MB per second right ?

So then.. could I divide 20,000 GB by 85MB per second = 235. Does that mean it would take 235 seconds ? That makes no sense to me. Obviously I am an idiot right ?

So then I thought

85MB second = 85x60seconds= 5100MB per minute. That's 5GB right ? So it's doing about 5GB per minute? (Still seems fast right ???)

So that means 20,000 GB divided by 5GB per minute = 4000 minutes. That seems about right ???

so 4000 minutes divided by 60 = 66.6 hours.

That means it's gonna take this pig 66 hours to finish ????

Seriously ????

I mean I have some spare space (at least 200GB per HDD) and the proccess is sometimes faster but with the green drive as parity I think it's limited to a combo of how fast CPU can process parity and how fast the slow green drive can record it.

so I guess 50 hours would be a reasonable expectation ???

holy smokes !!!

Actually, FlexRAID low balls itself when it comes to speed.
The speed reported is a per drive value at the lowest denominator.

I really need to fix that since FlexRAID is really processing at a minimum 85MB/s * the number of DRU in the RAID. In your case, that's 85MB/s * 7 = 595MB/s.
And that value doesn't even include the write throughput.
I was worried that presenting speed that varied per the number of drives would confuse users when looking at other people benchmark and thinking their system was too slow.

The way I present the throughput, a system with 20 drives will show the same throughput as a system with just two drives when in reality things are much more different.
Essentially, FlexRAID shows relative and normalized throughput. This normalized value let's me know when the user's system is performing adequately without having to do a count of his/her drives.

[Edit] http://wiki.flexraid.com/2013/02/12/understanding-the-throughput-reported-by-flexraid/

Flexible RAID:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
spectrumbx is offline  
post #84 of 85 Old 02-13-2013, 01:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
Awesome reply!

Wow. Thanks. Makes sense since it finished my 7 drives of 20TB much faster than I expected.

Can I ask- What is the difference with NZFS ?

Is this problem of long initialize gone in that product ???

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #85 of 85 Old 05-17-2013, 12:46 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 23,032
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked: 852
Spectrum you still around ?

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

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