Drive Pool solution or something else? Alternatives? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 50 Old 10-31-2013, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzJackRabbit View Post

So can anyone suggest a solution to my problem? I want to:

- Manually manage data on the individual hard drives

- I want my pool software to simply pool all the individual hard drives into one big read only pool with NO balancing/redundancy management whatsoever

Your desire for both is your problem. You can't have it. If you want drive pooling, something must enforce you don't have two files on different drives with the same path. You have to give up manual control; you can no longer treat the physical drives as individual volumes because they aren't independent anymore.

The reason DFS wasn't working for you was because it is designed for distributed systems, to give the users a unified view and give sysadmins a geographically partitioned view. You had all the shares on one host..not distributed. To use DFS to fake what you want, install AD and HyperV on your server. Make one HyperV guest for each drive (use Server Core here). Put each guest into a different AD Site. Use DFS to merge them all. It's doable, but probably not worth it just to shoehorn Windows into a role for which it is not suited.
EricN is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 50 Old 10-31-2013, 02:32 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 EricN View Post

Your desire for both is your problem. You can't have it. If you want drive pooling, something must enforce you don't have two files on different drives with the same path. You have to give up manual control; you can no longer treat the physical drives as individual volumes because they aren't independent anymore.

False. You certainly can have it. Obviously it is trivial if you do not have identical path/filenames on different drives (which is certainly the case for my media pool). If you do have identical path/filenames on different drives, then it is straightforward to have a rule that, for example, always points the symlink to the "first" occurrence (or "last", or some other rule). That is not ideal, but it just means you should avoid making identical path/filenames with this type of pool, not that it is impossible to do what he wants.

Of course, it may be very difficult to manage on Windows. But it is quite easy on my linux box.
jim2100 is offline  
post #33 of 50 Old 10-31-2013, 03:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
EricN's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,243
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 62 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by jim2100 View Post

Of course, it may be very difficult to manage on Windows. But it is quite easy on my linux box.

Linux has VFS. Windows does not. You can easily add layers in the middle with Linux, but with Windows you have to run around catching butterflies filesystem events. That's why I think all the FooRaid software for Windows is crap.

DFS solves this deficiency at the larger scale, but it's not a solution for a single server.
EricN is online now  
post #34 of 50 Old 11-01-2013, 08:26 AM
Senior Member
 
Elpee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrkazador View Post

I had a similar problem where my client systems couldn't access my shared Junction folders. What worked is adding "authenticated users" in the security tab of my shared folders.


Anybody can confirm if it works on Windows OS?
Thanks.
Elpee is offline  
post #35 of 50 Old 11-02-2013, 11:38 PM
Member
 
Krispy Kritter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just a thought, but change your management and thought process to suit how the software actually works.

Most media/file shares only need to be read only for ALL users. Then simply have a folder that has read/write access for users to share content or add new content. Once a week (or whatever schedule fits your needs), move content to be kept from the shared folder to its home on the read only drive. It's basically what you are doing now, without the need for using accounts and permissions to set access for all files/shares/drives/pools/whatever. The only data that can lost or corrupted by the users is the small amount of data in the open access folder.

Just my two cents.
Krispy Kritter is offline  
post #36 of 50 Old 11-04-2013, 11:58 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
JazzJackRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10

This is not directed at anyone in specific, but it's just common sense to keep access privileges as low as possible, there are many many reasons why you would want your pool to be read only. Apparently yet another reason has surfaced earlier this month: there is new malware/virus that is circulating on the net that encrypts your files and demands ransom to unencrypt them. The current going price is about $2000.

 

 

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/virus-removal/cryptolocker-ransomware-information

 

So guys, stay cool, stay safe.

 

I'm still testing DrivePool + SnapRAID combination by removing hidden and system attributes of PoolPart.GUID folders. I have created a batch file that removes hidden and system attributes from PoolPart.GUID folders, runs SnapRAID sync and scrub 6 days a week at midnight. I have created another batch file that is similar to the first one, but it does full data check instead of scrubbing, that one will run only once a week at midnight.

 

On my to do list are:
- Test SnapRAID file recovery by doing a test delete of one of the files, I have been too busy to do it, but it has to be done
- Find a good way to log the batch file results into a text log file
- Find a way to email me the results

JazzJackRabbit is offline  
post #37 of 50 Old 12-06-2013, 11:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lespurgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: California
Posts: 2,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 42
How about mounting each drive as a folder to the master drive? Then use SnapRaid only for parity of the master and mounted drives?
lespurgeon is offline  
post #38 of 50 Old 02-12-2014, 08:38 PM
Member
 
mrstop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzJackRabbit View Post

I'm still testing DrivePool + SnapRAID combination by removing hidden and system attributes of PoolPart.GUID folders. I have created a batch file that removes hidden and system attributes from PoolPart.GUID folders, runs SnapRAID sync and scrub 6 days a week at midnight. I have created another batch file that is similar to the first one, but it does full data check instead of scrubbing, that one will run only once a week at midnight.

On my to do list are:

- Test SnapRAID file recovery by doing a test delete of one of the files, I have been too busy to do it, but it has to be done

- Find a good way to log the batch file results into a text log file

- Find a way to email me the results

How has your DrivePool + SnapRaid experiment worked? I have Drivepool installed and I really like it and the scanner. Now I'm trying to get SnapRaid working on top. However, as you have found out SnapRaid can't recognize the hidden folders of DrivePool. Any suggestions?
mrstop is offline  
post #39 of 50 Old 02-13-2014, 06:12 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
JazzJackRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lespurgeon View Post

How about mounting each drive as a folder to the master drive? Then use SnapRaid only for parity of the master and mounted drives?


Wouldn't work because 1) it does not solve the hidden folder problem, and 2) I'm not sure how SnapRAID would handle mounted drives inside master drive, theoretically I think you can point SnapRAID to individual folder on each drive if you do not want to protect entire drive, but once again, I am not sure how SnapRAID would handle it. Basically I think this idea is a non starter because one, I'm not sure if SnapRAID can handle it, and even if it did, it does not solve the original problem.

JazzJackRabbit is offline  
post #40 of 50 Old 02-13-2014, 06:21 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
JazzJackRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrstop View Post


How has your DrivePool + SnapRaid experiment worked? I have Drivepool installed and I really like it and the scanner. Now I'm trying to get SnapRaid working on top. However, as you have found out SnapRaid can't recognize the hidden folders of DrivePool. Any suggestions?


Yes, I'm still using it, it works just fine. Yes, DrivePool data folders have 1) hidden and 2) system attributes applied to them, so in order for SnapRAID to recognize those folders you need to remove hidden and system attributes from them. So once you do that SnapRAID will recognize those folders, and fortunately Stablebit Drivepool does not reapply hidden/system attributes once you remove them. I used attrib command to do that. I'm not at home, so I do not remember the exact syntax, but it should look something like this:

 

attrib -H -S D:\PoolPart.GUID /D

 

I actually created a couple of .bat files that remove hidden/system attributes from PoolPart.GUID folders just in case StableBit DrivePool decides to reapply them, and then run either snapraid sync or check command. I just migrated my fileserver to a new box so I still have to set up nightly jobs running those .bat files, but once I do it's going to be leave and forget kind of operation.

JazzJackRabbit is offline  
post #41 of 50 Old 07-06-2014, 11:02 PM
Newbie
 
deusxanime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzJackRabbit View Post
Quote:Originally Posted by mrstop 


How has your DrivePool + SnapRaid experiment worked? I have Drivepool installed and I really like it and the scanner. Now I'm trying to get SnapRaid working on top. However, as you have found out SnapRaid can't recognize the hidden folders of DrivePool. Any suggestions?


Yes, I'm still using it, it works just fine. Yes, DrivePool data folders have 1) hidden and 2) system attributes applied to them, so in order for SnapRAID to recognize those folders you need to remove hidden and system attributes from them. So once you do that SnapRAID will recognize those folders, and fortunately Stablebit Drivepool does not reapply hidden/system attributes once you remove them. I used attrib command to do that. I'm not at home, so I do not remember the exact syntax, but it should look something like this:
 
attrib -H -S D:\PoolPart.GUID /D
 
I actually created a couple of .bat files that remove hidden/system attributes from PoolPart.GUID folders just in case StableBit DrivePool decides to reapply them, and then run either snapraid sync or check command. I just migrated my fileserver to a new box so I still have to set up nightly jobs running those .bat files, but once I do it's going to be leave and forget kind of operation.
Found your thread and you pretty much had exactly the same requirements in your OP that I have. I'm using SnapRAID and have been wanting to move to a pool. How has network sharing been out of the StableBit pool? I'm using a Windows 2008 R2 server as the OS, but don't run any media apps on it directly, instead using it more as a NAS and Hyper-V host. I've tried FlexRAID in the past (back when it was still a free beta), but it had issues with NTFS and especially sharing over the network with my (mostly Windows) clients. Tired of having to have shares all over the place though so I'd like to move to a unified pool and still maintain my RAID 6-like parity of SnapRAID.
deusxanime is offline  
post #42 of 50 Old 07-07-2014, 08:35 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
JazzJackRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by deusxanime View Post
Found your thread and you pretty much had exactly the same requirements in your OP that I have. I'm using SnapRAID and have been wanting to move to a pool. How has network sharing been out of the StableBit pool? I'm using a Windows 2008 R2 server as the OS, but don't run any media apps on it directly, instead using it more as a NAS and Hyper-V host. I've tried FlexRAID in the past (back when it was still a free beta), but it had issues with NTFS and especially sharing over the network with my (mostly Windows) clients. Tired of having to have shares all over the place though so I'd like to move to a unified pool and still maintain my RAID 6-like parity of SnapRAID.
I'm afraid I don't think I'll be able to help you here. My needs are pretty simple - read only pool that aggregates my data and that is available on the network. The stablebit product creates such a pool for me, it mounts that pool to a physical letter on the server host. I share that drive over network with read only privileges. Since the data is mostly static I manage it by remoting into server host. It's a bit of a pain, yes, but it's the only way to protect against cryptolocker ransomware and user error (who always insist they know what they're doing and when files go missing it's always "I have no idea how it happened, it couldn't have been me because I know what I'm doing").

I had an idea to try and make one or two folders within the pool writeable to ease the management and to let my gf put her music on the pool and to get her off my back about not trusting her to manage the data but it did not work. I'm pretty sure it did not work because she's using a mac and there is something wonky with the win-mac file sharing. There are a few references on the web where people say NTFS permissions work with drivepool, but as I said I have never tried setting more granular folder permissions personally.
http://community.covecube.com/index....e-share-level/
http://sourceforge.net/p/snapraid/di...read/4e7c3134/

Stablebit does provide a fully functional 30 day trial. You can always try it yourself. As far as I understand it installs two windows services, one for the pool and one for the the scanner along with the GUI that lets you manage those services. If you want to manage the data within the individual hard drives yourself I would advise you to disable rebalancing and duplication features of the DrivePool before adding any drives to it. At $35 for drivepool + scanner I think it's reasonably priced and 30 day trial gives you enough time to determine if it'll work for you or not.

Let me know if NTFS permissions work or not, I'm curious to know myself.
JazzJackRabbit is offline  
post #43 of 50 Old 07-07-2014, 09:02 PM
Member
 
mrstop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
I'm running Windows 7 on my HTPC/Server running DrivePool as well as my other computers. I had to extend permissions on the HTPC/Server for computers in my network to see them. After doing that I don't have any trouble seeing the pooled drives.

I really like the Stabilbit DrivePool/Scanner programs. They work really well and the developer is continuing to enhance the product.
mrstop is offline  
post #44 of 50 Old 07-07-2014, 09:42 PM
Newbie
 
deusxanime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzJackRabbit View Post
I'm afraid I don't think I'll be able to help you here. My needs are pretty simple - read only pool that aggregates my data and that is available on the network. The stablebit product creates such a pool for me, it mounts that pool to a physical letter on the server host. I share that drive over network with read only privileges. Since the data is mostly static I manage it by remoting into server host. It's a bit of a pain, yes, but it's the only way to protect against cryptolocker ransomware and user error (who always insist they know what they're doing and when files go missing it's always "I have no idea how it happened, it couldn't have been me because I know what I'm doing").

I had an idea to try and make one or two folders within the pool writeable to ease the management and to let my gf put her music on the pool and to get her off my back about not trusting her to manage the data but it did not work. I'm pretty sure it did not work because she's using a mac and there is something wonky with the win-mac file sharing. There are a few references on the web where people say NTFS permissions work with drivepool, but as I said I have never tried setting more granular folder permissions personally.
http://community.covecube.com/index....e-share-level/
http://sourceforge.net/p/snapraid/di...read/4e7c3134/

Stablebit does provide a fully functional 30 day trial. You can always try it yourself. As far as I understand it installs two windows services, one for the pool and one for the the scanner along with the GUI that lets you manage those services. If you want to manage the data within the individual hard drives yourself I would advise you to disable rebalancing and duplication features of the DrivePool before adding any drives to it. At $35 for drivepool + scanner I think it's reasonably priced and 30 day trial gives you enough time to determine if it'll work for you or not.

Let me know if NTFS permissions work or not, I'm curious to know myself.
I think I'll give it a whirl and do some testing with the trial, leaving it hidden so snapraid doesn't pick it up, with a few folders. If it works with sharing etc., it looks like I'll want to upgrade my snapraid (using v3.2 x64, looks like it's up to v6.2 already!) at the same time and do a complete parity refresh anyway for the new hashing type. That will take a while as I have 8 x 2 TB drives with 2 paritys, so 12 TB "usable" and it's nearly full! I'll see how it goes and try to report back.

Btw, while doing some searching, found this blurb about Mac issues with FlexRAID. Could be the same problem you were having connecting from your GF's Mac.
http://wiki.flexraid.com/2012/01/14/...ol-from-a-mac/
deusxanime is offline  
post #45 of 50 Old 07-08-2014, 07:43 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
JazzJackRabbit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 13
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by deusxanime View Post
Btw, while doing some searching, found this blurb about Mac issues with FlexRAID. Could be the same problem you were having connecting from your GF's Mac.
http://wiki.flexraid.com/2012/01/14/...ol-from-a-mac/
Sadly that was not my problem. I know about .DS_Store files and I hate them with a passion. I already disabled those for network locations because I did not want to pollute my file server with thousands and thousands of .DS_Store files just because we have one mac on the network. In case of my GF she could see the share, but she could not write to it even though I gave her write permissions to that specific folder. So I have no idea what was going on.

As a side note, windows is equally stupid with its own thumbs.db file generation. I tried disabling them on my own machine, but I'm pretty sure it did not work either... sigh. Maybe I'm just technologically incompetent, rofl?
JazzJackRabbit is offline  
post #46 of 50 Old 07-08-2014, 09:15 AM
Member
 
darthwhit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It seems to me you are making this much harder than it needs to be. While you say setting up a domain is a PITA it may be worth it. I'm running an older pc with server 2012 essentials R2 with four storage drives and drivebender.

Setting up accounts even if they are generic takes care of access and permissions. Then you don't have to worry about balancing individual drives even though you can access the individual drives in drivebender. I know you have stated that you want manual control but if you get rid of the reason for needed it then you don't have to worry about it.

I've seen so many Raid systems fail over the years I didn't want to go down that road. I can add any hard drive to my pool no matter how it is connected. It doesn't matter how large each drive is, if they match, if they where made by the same manufacturer. I could have two IDE drives, three USB drives, one ESATA, and two SATA drives as one large pool. I can then have the software duplicate the data that I want to be redundant to multiple drives. I can still unplug a drive and plug it into another PC and read it as an NTSF drive with access to all of the data stored on it. If my motherboard dies I can take the same hard drives and plug them into another PC with DriveBender and it will be able to see the pool as if nothing happened. I would say it rebuilds it but not in the same way that a RAID set rebuilds. I like this method because there are much better tools at recovering data and manipulating NTFS drives than for drives as part of a RAID set.

In my experience the simpler solution is usually best. This solution is incredibly simple. You don't need to be running Server essentials either. Just set up a windows 7 machine and share the folders you want and setup the permissions if that sounds easier and cheaper. I use 2012 server essentials because it is free for me from work.
darthwhit is offline  
post #47 of 50 Old 07-08-2014, 09:54 PM
Newbie
 
deusxanime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthwhit View Post
It seems to me you are making this much harder than it needs to be. While you say setting up a domain is a PITA it may be worth it. I'm running an older pc with server 2012 essentials R2 with four storage drives and drivebender.

Setting up accounts even if they are generic takes care of access and permissions. Then you don't have to worry about balancing individual drives even though you can access the individual drives in drivebender. I know you have stated that you want manual control but if you get rid of the reason for needed it then you don't have to worry about it.

I've seen so many Raid systems fail over the years I didn't want to go down that road. I can add any hard drive to my pool no matter how it is connected. It doesn't matter how large each drive is, if they match, if they where made by the same manufacturer. I could have two IDE drives, three USB drives, one ESATA, and two SATA drives as one large pool. I can then have the software duplicate the data that I want to be redundant to multiple drives. I can still unplug a drive and plug it into another PC and read it as an NTSF drive with access to all of the data stored on it. If my motherboard dies I can take the same hard drives and plug them into another PC with DriveBender and it will be able to see the pool as if nothing happened. I would say it rebuilds it but not in the same way that a RAID set rebuilds. I like this method because there are much better tools at recovering data and manipulating NTFS drives than for drives as part of a RAID set.

In my experience the simpler solution is usually best. This solution is incredibly simple. You don't need to be running Server essentials either. Just set up a windows 7 machine and share the folders you want and setup the permissions if that sounds easier and cheaper. I use 2012 server essentials because it is free for me from work.
I looked it up, and as expected DriveBender is horribly inefficient as far as space. My media array is 8x 2TB drives, total size 16 TB. With SnapRAID I use 2 parity parts, thus my usable space is 12 TB. The option for protection in DB is based on simple file duplication, so to protect all my data from drive failure (which I want to do), I'd have to sacrifice half my space, and would only have 8 TB usable! As I add more drives, with DB I'd always have to sacrifice 1/2 the space to duplication. But with SnapRAID, unless I decide to increase my parity to be 3 part, any new drives I put in I get 100% use out of and still maintain the ability to lose 2 drives and be able to recover data. This is why I use SnapRAID as opposed to a solution like DriveBender. It's also why I stopped using WHS as that was how it offered protection as well and it wasn't worth the cost in HDDs to me.
deusxanime is offline  
post #48 of 50 Old 07-09-2014, 08:57 AM
Member
 
darthwhit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 75
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by deusxanime View Post
I looked it up, and as expected DriveBender is horribly inefficient as far as space. My media array is 8x 2TB drives, total size 16 TB. With SnapRAID I use 2 parity parts, thus my usable space is 12 TB. The option for protection in DB is based on simple file duplication, so to protect all my data from drive failure (which I want to do), I'd have to sacrifice half my space, and would only have 8 TB usable! As I add more drives, with DB I'd always have to sacrifice 1/2 the space to duplication. But with SnapRAID, unless I decide to increase my parity to be 3 part, any new drives I put in I get 100% use out of and still maintain the ability to lose 2 drives and be able to recover data. This is why I use SnapRAID as opposed to a solution like DriveBender. It's also why I stopped using WHS as that was how it offered protection as well and it wasn't worth the cost in HDDs to me.
You are correct, deusxanime. It has positives and negatives. When I can pickup a 4TB hard drive for $150 I'm not as concerned about space.

I prefer this method for several reasons:
1: It's easy to add drives of any type, or connection, or manufacturer, or size and I will immediately see an increase in storage.
2: I don't need all of my drives to match.
3: I can also decide what is duplicated on a folder to folder basis.
4: If I do have a drive that is acting up I can easily take it out of the pool and still see all of the data because it remains NTFS.
5: If my server or any other piece of hardware goes belly up I can restore the pool very easily and on virtually any PC.

To me this is cheaper as far as hard drives go. If I started off with SnapRAID I would need all of my drives to be at least of the same size wouldn't I? Using DriveBender I was able to use six different hard drives that I already had laying around that varied from 320GB to 4TB. What do you need to do when if you want to add space? Can you go buy a 4TB drive or must you go get another 2TB drive?

My total cost in setting up this server was the $15 or so I spent on the DriveBender license. Everything else I had already.


While it may not be the perfect solution for you, it is about as perfect a solution as I need.
darthwhit is offline  
post #49 of 50 Old 07-09-2014, 11:21 AM
Member
 
mrstop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 90
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthwhit View Post
If I started off with SnapRAID I would need all of my drives to be at least of the same size wouldn't I? Using DriveBender I was able to use six different hard drives that I already had laying around that varied from 320GB to 4TB. What do you need to do when if you want to add space? Can you go buy a 4TB drive or must you go get another 2TB drive?
No, all of your drives do not need to be the same size with SnapRAID. The only requirement is that your parity drive be the same size or bigger than your largest data drive. For example if you have a 320GB, 2TB, 2TB, and 4TB data drives then you would need a 4TB data drive to handle your parity. You can add any drives under 4TB and still use the same 4TB parity drive. If you add larger than a 4TB data drive, for example a 5 or 6TB, then you would need to upgrade your parity drive to 5 or 6TB.
mrstop is offline  
post #50 of 50 Old 08-03-2014, 07:17 PM
Newbie
 
deusxanime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzJackRabbit View Post
I'm afraid I don't think I'll be able to help you here. My needs are pretty simple - read only pool that aggregates my data and that is available on the network. The stablebit product creates such a pool for me, it mounts that pool to a physical letter on the server host. I share that drive over network with read only privileges. Since the data is mostly static I manage it by remoting into server host. It's a bit of a pain, yes, but it's the only way to protect against cryptolocker ransomware and user error (who always insist they know what they're doing and when files go missing it's always "I have no idea how it happened, it couldn't have been me because I know what I'm doing").

I had an idea to try and make one or two folders within the pool writeable to ease the management and to let my gf put her music on the pool and to get her off my back about not trusting her to manage the data but it did not work. I'm pretty sure it did not work because she's using a mac and there is something wonky with the win-mac file sharing. There are a few references on the web where people say NTFS permissions work with drivepool, but as I said I have never tried setting more granular folder permissions personally.
http://community.covecube.com/index....e-share-level/
http://sourceforge.net/p/snapraid/di...read/4e7c3134/

Stablebit does provide a fully functional 30 day trial. You can always try it yourself. As far as I understand it installs two windows services, one for the pool and one for the the scanner along with the GUI that lets you manage those services. If you want to manage the data within the individual hard drives yourself I would advise you to disable rebalancing and duplication features of the DrivePool before adding any drives to it. At $35 for drivepool + scanner I think it's reasonably priced and 30 day trial gives you enough time to determine if it'll work for you or not.

Let me know if NTFS permissions work or not, I'm curious to know myself.
Just an update. I've been running DrivePool, along with continuing to use my SnapRAID setup, for the past month and it has worked well, so I went ahead and purchased it (along with Scanner, though I haven't tried that out yet). DP worked fine with running network shares, share permissions, security permissions, and also as source for PS3 Media Server for DLNA. The only occasional issue I've seen it that sometimes it seems to hang for a few seconds when moving around the files. Seems intermittent and not a big concern though. Happy with the setup, even if it isn't as ideal as I'd like, basically as was outlayed in OP. One more problem solved, time to move on with life to the next one...
deusxanime 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