Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke
This is the one issue that still has me at least considering FlexRAID (t) instead of (f). I'm still leaning heavily towards (f) mostly because that is what the designer himself has even recommended for media servers. But given that I know my upgrade path lies towards larger drives, I am still at least considering going with (t) to eliminate some of the excessive parity writes that would be associated with 2 x 6 TB parity drives, much less what the performance hit would be if I eventually move up to 2 x 8 TB drives for parity.
In addition to being real time, tRAID offers a very useful feature where you can write the parity online. In raid-f you have to wait for the parity to write before your array can be used. I realize this seems trivial to most -- and for good reason. However, if you ever fail a parity drive, then you'll likely notice the amount of time it takes (8-9 hrs at the best, 14 or more with larger drives -- assuming your DRUs contain data)
Originally Posted by Mfusick
Being drive bay limited is a smoke screen objection, that is easily solved. A proper media server should have enough bays or be expandable. I understand trying cram a few huge drives inside a HTPC for local storage but when your spending thousands on drives for capacity and making 30+ TB media servers being drive limited is silly. Upgrade the case!
Your hubris is ridiculous. My media server was done right. I just pinch more pennies. My 5in3 enclosures were 20% off (with a coupon that couldn't apply to the chassis) but their total was still $140. I had a fairly easy choice, trash my existing Armor case (as nobody would ever be willing to pay $130 or anywhere in the neighborhood for it and I had no other use for a case of it's size) or put the $140 into it and make a 15 bay + ODD server.
Instead I should have paid over $200 more to have a norco? All so that I could use lots of 3TB drives? Throw away the existing 4TB drives I had as well, that I purchased for the same price as my 3TB drives?
I don't think the right answer is upgrading the chassis and adding a second bay to accomodate 3TB drives instead of switching over to tRAID
Originally Posted by kapone
So, lemme make sure I understand. You guys are talking about 8TB in a single drive, and having 16-24 drive slots, and still talking about parity?? Why wouldn't you just duplicate or triplicate your data and not worry about parity in the first place?
Same reason you didn't when it was 1TB then 2, 3, 4, etc. When you compare single drive failure protection to duplicating there is no reason to spend extra, unless there were multiple reports of parity protection failing unexpectedly (which I've not seen)