8tb - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 78Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 161 Old 08-26-2014, 08:46 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 39
8tb

I was surprised to see this tonight. Making storage arrays more easily maximized.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/26/s...=rss_truncated
oman321 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 161 Old 08-26-2014, 10:51 PM
Senior Member
 
Aryn Ravenlocke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 78
And here I was debating between moving up to 6 TB or sticking with 4 TB when it comes time for me to expand. If I can get an 8 TB HD for under $45/TB I'll be all over it. Drives that size should pretty much assure that I will never reach the point of needing another hot swap chassis.
Aryn Ravenlocke is online now  
post #3 of 161 Old 08-26-2014, 11:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post
And here I was debating between moving up to 6 TB or sticking with 4 TB when it comes time for me to expand. If I can get an 8 TB HD for under $45/TB I'll be all over it. Drives that size should pretty much assure that I will never reach the point of needing another hot swap chassis.
I's say you'll eventually be able to get them for that price, but the first round of drives are Enterprise class drives, and will likely be significantly more expensive than that. (like 2x or 3x when they first hit the market) Consumer drives will probably Be more than $45/TB when they hit the streets too, but they'll drop eventually.

Those Enterprise drives will be shipping to "select customers" next quarter. They probably won't be available in the usual distribution chain until sometime in 2015, and the consumer drives will be a while after that (and that'll still be at an inflated "early adopter" price). I'd be surprised if you could get 8TB drives for $45/TB this time next year.

It's nice to know that you'll have an easy upgrade path for down the road, but right now those 8TB drives are still a long way away from being a good value for home storage. (and of course by the time you're seriously looking at the 8TB drives they'll be talking about 10 and 12TB models)

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #4 of 161 Old 08-26-2014, 11:39 PM
Senior Member
 
Aryn Ravenlocke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
I's say you'll eventually be able to get them for that price, but the first round of drives are Enterprise class drives, and will likely be significantly more expensive than that. (like 2x or 3x when they first hit the market) Consumer drives will probably Be more than $45/TB when they hit the streets too, but they'll drop eventually.

Those Enterprise drives will be shipping to "select customers" next quarter. They probably won't be available in the usual distribution chain until sometime in 2015, and the consumer drives will be a while after that (and that'll still be at an inflated "early adopter" price). I'd be surprised if you could get 8TB drives for $45/TB this time next year.

It's nice to know that you'll have an easy upgrade path for down the road, but right now those 8TB drives are still a long way away from being a good value for home storage. (and of course by the time you're seriously looking at the 8TB drives they'll be talking about 10 and 12TB models)
I'm sure the 10-12 TB drives will be around at some level before I am dumping money into 8 TB drives. The nice thing about 8 TB drives is that, I know they put me over the hump in terms of not having to invest in another HDD chassis down the road. 6 TB drives may or may not get me there, but 8 TB absolutely does, with room to spare. I don't expect the 8 TB drives any time real soon, but if they become affordable at the consumer level within two years, I'll be set.
ajhieb and Dark_Slayer like this.

Last edited by Aryn Ravenlocke; 08-27-2014 at 08:26 AM. Reason: Fixing ^ to be 6
Aryn Ravenlocke is online now  
post #5 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 02:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,657
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 238 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post
I'm sure the 10-12 TB drives will be around at some level before I am dumping money into 8 TB drives. The nice thing about 8 TB drives is that, I know they put me over the hump in terms of not having to invest in another HDD chassis down the road. ^ TB drives may or may not get me there, but 8 TB absolutely does, with room to spare. I don't expect the 8 TB drives any time real soon, but if they become affordable at the consumer level within two years, I'll be set.
There's already a decent deal on a 6TB Seagate drive this week, I'd agree with your sentiment. That was my thinking when I was planning/moving-parts-around for my server, but it's nice to see things progress in that fashion. I have 10 hot swap trays and 5 internal trays along with a bd-rom at the moment with 16 sata connections available leaving 14 for flexraid but maybe 13 if I add a landing disk. I use 11 drives now with a 4TB parity and 30TB spread across the other 10 (not all 3TB drives though). If I add 2x 6TB and a landing disk then I'll be at full capacity without getting creative on mounting, and I'd be at 40TB. Then I could replace my 3x2TB and 4x3TB as needed adding another +24TB pulling it to 64 with a mix of 6TB and 4TB drives. Potential for 96 using all 8TB drives and a landing disk, but I don't know that I need that any time soon

It must take me a lot longer than average to fill an array I've had 30TB for a while, and I'm still 10 free. In January I was almost 13 free, so at that pace I'm not worried for another couple years
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #6 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 05:49 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,223
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 1017
I was just going to start a post having read about the 8TB Seagate drives now shipping on Maximum PC this morning.... Guess I don't have to do it anymore.

Side note: I think 8TB drive might not be great option for snapshot RAID. Too Fawking big !!!

It's going take too long to read all 8TB sequentially .... Me thinks ...
Mfusick is online now  
post #7 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 07:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
captain_video's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 3,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
I was just going to start a post having read about the 8TB Seagate drives now shipping on Maximum PC this morning.... Guess I don't have to do it anymore.

Side note: I think 8TB drive might not be great option for snapshot RAID. Too Fawking big !!!

It's going take too long to read all 8TB sequentially .... Me thinks ...
Yeah. Having any kind of array that uses parity would take forever to build parity or restore a drive with drives this size. It may cut down on the number of drives required, but there's a huge tradeoff in that the array may have to be offline while some of this is taking place. Normal operation where you're just adding data and updating parity shouldn't have much of an affect, but rebuilding a drive from scratch or running a parity check on the entire array could literally tie up the server for a couple of days, depending on the speed of the hardware.

My server currently has 24 drives, including a single parity drive, for somewhere in the neighborhood of about 36TB of storage (I've got 2, 3, and 4TB drives mixed in). The vast majority of them are still 1.5TB drives. With the new drives at 5 or 6TB, I'm hoping prices for the 3 and 4TB models will start to plummet. Just swapping out the 1.5TB drives for 3 or 4TB units will vastly increase my storage capacity.
Mfusick likes this.
captain_video is offline  
post #8 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 07:32 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
oman321's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MASS
Posts: 4,771
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by captain_video View Post
My server currently has 24 drives, including a single parity drive, for somewhere in the neighborhood of about 36TB of storage (I've got 2, 3, and 4TB drives mixed in). The vast majority of them are still 1.5TB drives. With the new drives at 5 or 6TB, I'm hoping prices for the 3 and 4TB models will start to plummet. Just swapping out the 1.5TB drives for 3 or 4TB units will vastly increase my storage capacity.
LOL, my server has 4 TB but I completely agree with your sentiment about 3 and 4TB drives.
Mfusick likes this.
oman321 is offline  
post #9 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 05:56 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 ajhieb View Post
It's nice to know that you'll have an easy upgrade path for down the road, but right now those 8TB drives are still a long way away from being a good value for home storage. (and of course by the time you're seriously looking at the 8TB drives they'll be talking about 10 and 12TB models)
Something needs to be done about the capacity outpacing the speed on these consumer drives. The WD60EZRX takes 19 hours for a full write pass and 12 hours for a full read. Even for home use, that's getting untenable for some uses, and the 8TB generation will be worse.

They are behaving more like tape drives than hard drives at this point.
Mfusick, ajhieb and homerging like this.
EricN is online now  
post #10 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 06:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricN View Post
Something needs to be done about the capacity outpacing the speed on these consumer drives. The WD60EZRX takes 19 hours for a full write pass and 12 hours for a full read. Even for home use, that's getting untenable for some uses, and the 8TB generation will be worse.

They are behaving more like tape drives than hard drives at this point.
Only issue I can really think of is they might be a poor choice for any implementations of snapshot parity. I can't think of another time when the amount of time it takes to read or write an entire drive would come into play. And if that's the case, then don't use snapshot. (this is something that has started to annoy me lately... the idea that as long as your data is static, that snapshot is a good choice, and there are several other factors like this that need to be considered too)

But I agree, I'd like to see performance scale better with the size.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #11 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 06:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Aryn Ravenlocke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
Only issue I can really think of is they might be a poor choice for any implementations of snapshot parity. I can't think of another time when the amount of time it takes to read or write an entire drive would come into play. And if that's the case, then don't use snapshot. (this is something that has started to annoy me lately... the idea that as long as your data is static, that snapshot is a good choice, and there are several other factors like this that need to be considered too)

But I agree, I'd like to see performance scale better with the size.
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.
Aryn Ravenlocke is online now  
post #12 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 07:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post
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.
I don't have any personal experience with either product (F or T) so I can't really recommend either one. Anyway, I usually try to avoid making specific recommendations of brands or models, as I'd prefer to just explain the differences and let people choose for themselves what is best. Having said that, the time it takes to calculate parity is the number one reason why I personally wouldn't use a snapshot product. (followed closely by the fact that I add too much data to keep track of what's been included in parity and what hasn't so figuring out what needs to be restored in the event of a drive failure would be a big headache, and thirdly, I don't want to have to deal with keeping track of all the maintenance on a snapshot configuration)

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #13 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 07:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,223
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 1017
More smaller drives. 3TB is perfect IMO. Cheap. The right size and balance between speed and capacity. Since the cost per TB is often lowest with 3TB drives there's really no reason to be an early adopter of the 5/6/8Tb drives. Perhaps 4TB, but no more.

Run your server for the effective life of the drives (3 years+) and a better solution will be present as an upgrade path at that time. 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!

I'm about to add my second Norco chassis. I'm by no means a big spender, I've cheaped out and pinched pennies wherever I could along the way, but some things are better off done right.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #14 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 07:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kapone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,437
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 128
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?
EricN, Mfusick and Aryn Ravenlocke like this.
kapone is online now  
post #15 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 07:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
More smaller drives. 3TB is perfect IMO. Cheap. The right size and balance between speed and capacity. Since the cost per TB is often lowest with 3TB drives there's really no reason to be an early adopter of the 5/6/8Tb drives. Perhaps 4TB, but no more.

Run your server for the effective life of the drives (3 years+) and a better solution will be present as an upgrade path at that time. 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!

I'm about to add my second Norco chassis. I'm by no means a big spender, I've cheaped out and pinched pennies wherever I could along the way, but some things are better off done right.
Not everyone has the space to dedicate to adding case after case of drives. Being drive bay limited is absolutely a valid reason to go with bigger drives.

Not everyone has the same resources and requirements you do.

Adding more and more drives is only practical to a point anyway. The more drives you have and the older they get the more time you're going to have to dedicate to replacing dead drives and rebuilding your arrays.

I absolutely agree that people should do it right. I just don't think "right" is the same thing as "the way Mfusick does it" for everyone.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #16 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 07:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by kapone View Post
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?
Assuming storage requirements stay similar to what they are now, that's certainly a viable solution. But 2 years from now when we're all watching UXYZHD at 2,850,000 x 1,000,000 (480fps at 72bit color depth) we'll need a lot more storage than we do for these crappy 1080P rips that everyone has now.

That is of course assuming we can stay out of the hospital due to injuries sustained from mistakenly trying to walk into our TV screens that are so lifelike we keep trying to pull a Wile E. Coyote into them.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #17 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 07:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
kapone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,437
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
Assuming storage requirements stay similar to what they are now, that's certainly a viable solution. But 2 years from now when we're all watching UXYZHD at 2,850,000 x 1,000,000 (480fps at 72bit color depth) we'll need a lot more storage than we do for these crappy 1080P rips that everyone has now.

That is of course assuming we can stay out of the hospital due to injuries sustained from mistakenly trying to walk into our TV screens that are so lifelike we keep trying to pull a Wile E. Coyote into them.
No doubt. But at 8TB (or more) a drive, even a "measly" 16 drive chassis will hold a mind boggling 128TB of data. And a chassis like that can be had in the neighborhood of $160.

Amazing.
Mfusick likes this.
kapone is online now  
post #18 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 08:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Aryn Ravenlocke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tempe, AZ, USA
Posts: 485
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 230 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by kapone View Post
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?
Eventually, I may very well move into this realm again, but not for a while still, and certainly not before 8 TB drives reach something close to the sweet spot on $/TB. I do know that I have about 30 TB of data ready to be loaded onto the server. I have ~10 TB more data waiting to be converted and then added. During that period of time that I am converting, more movies and shows will come out that will require more room. However, once I finally get "caught up" with the converting and loading, then, a single 8 TB drive probably represents enough storage that I will never need another data drive. At that point, I will have a much clearer idea of how much total storage I need. Then, if I am feeling the urge, I can consolidate all those 4 TB drives I currently have onto some 8 TB drives, save money on power consumption, and have another tack of back-up discs should my spiffy "new" array ever fail.

The fact that 8 TB drives are double what I am using now means that the current set-up I have should always be enough in terms of drive space. Until I know for certain how much data space I am going to need though, I find using parity to be useful as a means for open-ended addition at a rapid rate.
Aryn Ravenlocke is online now  
post #19 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 08:53 PM
Member
 
AaronMilwaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I think in a few years SSDs will be cheap enough and big enough that we're going to look back and laugh at how much time we spent worrying about parity calculation time, drive failures, drive bay space, drive cooling and power usage, etc.
AaronMilwaukee is online now  
post #20 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 09:15 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 241
You guys do realize that when you "update" your parity drive it doesn't compute the entire thing, right? Only what has changed since the last update.
assassin is offline  
post #21 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 09:20 PM
Member
 
AaronMilwaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post
You guys do realize that when you "update" your parity drive it doesn't compute the entire thing, right? Only what has changed since the last update.
Yeah, but you could be like a certain unnamed poster whose ID rhymes with SchmaronSchmilwaukee and turn off the nightly update and then forget you did so and then have a disk fail and lose a few months of data, STILL forget to turn the nightly update back on and then by the time you realize it you've added 2TB of data and you have your drives in an eSATA enclosure so it takes over a day to do the full update and your old lady and friends who access your server are not happy.

But not many people are that dumb.
Mfusick, oman321, NNate and 2 others like this.
AaronMilwaukee is online now  
post #22 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 09:22 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Sounds like user error to me.
assassin is offline  
post #23 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 09:23 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post
You guys do realize that when you "update" your parity drive it doesn't compute the entire thing, right? Only what has changed since the last update.
Yeah, but a "verify" does. (well, not computing parity, but it does read all the data) And you're still supposed to run those periodically, right?
Mfusick likes this.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #24 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 09:26 PM
Member
 
AaronMilwaukee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 40
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by assassin View Post
Sounds like user error to me.
No way, I blame Flexraid, Microsoft, and script kiddies
dfkimbro likes this.
AaronMilwaukee is online now  
post #25 of 161 Old 08-27-2014, 09:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
ajhieb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,596
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 430 Post(s)
Liked: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronMilwaukee View Post
Yeah, but you could be like a certain unnamed poster whose ID rhymes with SchmaronSchmilwaukee and turn off the nightly update and then forget you did so and then have a disk fail and lose a few months of data, STILL forget to turn the nightly update back on and then by the time you realize it you've added 2TB of data and you have your drives in an eSATA enclosure so it takes over a day to do the full update and your old lady and friends who access your server are not happy.

But not many people are that dumb.
While I'm sorry for the loss of your... I mean, Schmaron's data this is the greatest piece of (not) self incrimination ever. Bravo. Well done.
oman321 likes this.

RAID protection is only for failed drives. That's it. It's no replacement for a proper backup.
ajhieb is online now  
post #26 of 161 Old 08-28-2014, 02:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,657
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 238 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aryn Ravenlocke View Post
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapone View Post
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)
Dark_Slayer is offline  
post #27 of 161 Old 08-28-2014, 06:12 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajhieb View Post
Yeah, but a "verify" does. (well, not computing parity, but it does read all the data) And you're still supposed to run those periodically, right?
It could definitely be more of an issue with a 8TB parity drive. However, with that said is still might not be an issue for many/most depending on the end user and if it is doing its thing while you aren't needing the server (starting on Sunday night for instance and completing it Monday morning/afternoon while you are at work for example).

Also, I have had some intermittent success in playing back media during a verify update.

Again, none are perfect. Just depends on your needs.
Aryn Ravenlocke and ajhieb like this.
assassin is offline  
post #28 of 161 Old 08-28-2014, 07:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
balky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 886
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Liked: 61
I'm not sure I'm ever going to need to build a storage for HOME use with 8T drives...

Important stuff that needs to be kept... photos, music, documents... etc... has never exceeded 1TB since like 15 years of accumulation...

Only movies worth being watched a second time remain in storage for more than two weeks, and I would re-rip if a friend was coming over to see a particular movie that i had already deleted,
Kid movies are not deleted once ripped, but once my smallest boy starts to outgrow tom & jerry, you can guess what will happen...

From my style of usage I'm always wondering why anyone would need a 30TB NAS at home... it just beats me...

I am not saying it is a bad thing to do, but I think it must be some sort of mega colossal data hog to ever need more than 30TB at home...
Question is how much time in life you need to spend watching all that stuff versus how much time you actually spend watching...
balky is offline  
post #29 of 161 Old 08-28-2014, 07:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,223
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 1017
I play back media all the time during parity calculation . Performance does suck, but it's doable. Playback also doesn't mess anything up.

But modify /add/delete data potentially could.

I like what darkslayer said about t raid the more I think about it. He read my post wrong, but his answer made sense. I guess if the bigger drives were not a premium it does; I'll assume he's talking about future years where 5/6/8tb drives don't have a premium cost per TB. In that case there's a bit of logic switching away from snapshot raid, using fewer drives, less watts, etc...

But for today and the foreseeable future it's cheaper to buy a case (or add on second case) than it is to buy premium huge drives was my point. @darkslayer : I didn't mean to sound like I was assuming or suggesting everyone should buy a 20 hot swap bay chassis; you just imagined that or assumed because I have one. You can get non hot swap cases (even desktop styled) for under $100. Having enough drive bays for hard drives and future expansion should be paramount importance in media server design. Cost is irrelevant, it doesn't have to cost considerably more. At a certain point the cost is totally irrelevant of the case because in comparison to the drives and other hardware costs the cost of the server case is pennies on the dollar in the grand scheme of the project. Logic will take over and suggest $50 more on a case to properly hold and cool hdds makes sense when hard drives and other hardware are $2000. That's like 2-3% total cost, probably less if you count software. Not an excuse to use an inadequate case IMO. There's nothing wrong with pinching pennies either, like I said I'm a cheap bastard too. But there's some things where pinching pennies isn't worth it, or costs you more in the long run.

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #30 of 161 Old 08-28-2014, 08:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
captain_video's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 3,653
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 125 Post(s)
Liked: 161
UnRAID updates parity similar to Snapshot mode in FlexRAID, IIRC. (just updates parity for the new data). However, I like to perform a full parity check on occasion just as routine maintenance, which can take a considerable amount of time with a 4TB parity drive. The same holds true if I need to replace a defective drive with a new one since it's basically doing a parity check in reverse and filling in the missing bits on the blank drive.

Parity on a large capacity server may not be the best solution and certainly won't help with multiple drive failures, but it does offer a certain degree of protection and backup if one drive fails. Doing a parity check or restore on my current configuration can take about 16 hours, give or take, with a 4TB parity drive.

I currently have just two 4TB drives in the array so going with anything larger means the parity drive gets replaced first. This could result in tying up the server for 30 hours or more just to run a parity check with an 8TB drive and an additional 30+ hours for each new drive replacement. I've still got 22 other drives with a capacity less than 4TB so I can't see myself upgrading to 5, 6, or 8 TB drives anytime soon.

My server can be upgraded to up to 96 TB at full capacity and I'm only about one-third of the way there so any drives larger than 4TB aren't even on my radar at this stage. I honestly don't know if it will support a higher capacity since 4TB was the largest drive available the last time I checked this value. I'm also not sure if my Supermicro controllers or the motherboard SATA ports can handle drives larger than 4TB.
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