Guide To Building A Media Storage Server - Page 144

It doesn't work, that's why I don't use it. There is very little support for newer motherboards and you end up being a beta tester unless you can find an ancient mobo that has been given their seal of approval. In fact, I couldn't find one "officially approved" mobo for sale on NewEgg - plenty that have been discontinued. unRAID doesn't support the AOC-SASLP-MV8 either. I think probably some of the lack of support is Linux/driver related. That's a big part of why I don't think unRAID will be competitive in the future - it's a product you have to pay for but they rely on an open source OS for it to work. Once it supports my hardware perhaps I'll give it a try.


I agree with you... except the last statement. I don't see why discussing the options has to be fraught with bias. In fact all solutions have disadvantages as well as advantages and I likely will choose the solution that best meets my specific needs - of course that doesn't mean the others are better or worse solutions - just different.

Hardware RAID: great performance but too $$$ and probably the wrong tool for the job. Why buy a Porsche if you only want to haul lots of stuff? The analogy isn't perfect but makes the point.

unRAID: cool features, unified share, inexpensive and relatively simple. Unfortunately it supports old hardware... perhaps that's part of the reason it's so slow and requires a landing drive. You have to pay for a license that's tied to a USB drive and if that fails you have to get a new one - if the owner drops support of the product you're out of luck. It's based on Linux so expect it to fall further behind as far as driver support.

WHS: unified view, built in WHS featuers (i.e. computer backup), full OS can be used for other tasks. Unfortunately, it's expensive because fault tolerance is based on folder mirroring and thus isn't a great value.

FlexRAID: cool features, inexpensive, supports any hardware, and has high performance. Unfortunately, it's current version doesn't support WHS (for unified share) and there's risk using it with that OS (tombstone issues). It's snapshot RAID which leads to those issues. It will work on other OS's, with any hardware, but a single pooled share is what many people want and you need unsupported WHS for that.

So, for me it's not a matter of religiously believing in any of the solutions but rather choosing between very imperfect options - the one with the least problems.

You forgot Software RAID (on a competent OS).


Doesn't FlexRAID (like all these solutions) just expose a single disk/share to the user? What's WHS add that I'm missing?

Yes, parts of the remote access page use ActiveX, which is exclusive to IE.
You can still use firefox tho. Just install the IETabs addon for firefox.

Looking over your list, hardware RAID seems to spec out pretty well. And actually costs a bit of $$ to get good results. Remember, good cards start at $400 for 8 ports. That is alot of storage . . .

Not surprisingly, many of us came to the same conclusion long ago. There may be alot of solutions out there, but I would disagree with your position that most people are using HW RAID despite it being the 'wrong' solution.

From my understanding FlexRAID view will provide the single unified view/share, FlexRAID simply creates parity/snapshot RAID on the given OS.

Yes, hardware RAID is expensive in terms of building a server as well as ongoing costs (i.e. higher energy use and more wear and tear). Good SATA cards for psuedo-RAID are only $100, for the same amount of storage. For large storage systems you can see hardware gets expensive.

I also know you are a big fan of hardware RAID, and that's great for you. However, based on cost it's just not going to be a sensible solution for myself and many others. Don't take it personally because it's a good solution, if that's how you want to spend your money.

Think of it this way... if today everything stopped and we were permanently stuck with current options your argument might be more persuasive, if not still very expensive. What I think is more likely to happen is a new version of FlexRAID (supporting WHS, live parity, unified shares, etc) and a new version of unRAID (supporting new hardware) or an entirely different pseudo-RAID option that fixes those issues. When that happens hardware RAID will essentially be obsolete for media storage except maybe for those that have a pressing need for commercial type disk performance on a hybrid HTPC. For storing multi-TB media archives it's simply overkill.

Edit: Unless of course hardware RAID controllers come down by 1/4 and they don't all have to spin-up on every access.

lifespeed,
There isn't a one size fits all solution. It's all a matter of using the right solution that best fits the user's application and needs. You know all this. Unfortunately a one-trick Pony only knows ....well one trick.


If you add up the cost of your HighPoint 3520 ($450) + 5 x 1TB ($170) Seagate enterprise drives, you'd come in at $1300 for a measly 4TB raw.

$1300 gets a WHS user 7 x 2TB ($185)drives for 14TB raw. Even with duplication turned on that's 7TB of DUPLICATED storage for the same money. That's almost twice your 4TB capacity for the same cost.

It's easy to use. You're not tied into any model, make or capacity of drive as you are with raid solutions. Future expansion is brain-dead easy. In case of a disaster each of those drives can be read by any system that can support NTFS and data can be copied off.

When you really consider the low cost of 2TB drives, for most people duplication isn't really a big deal. Just add a new a drive on the fly when you need more space and move on with life.

Again everyone's needs are different, but sometimes the duplication cost side of the argument is overdone, all things considered.
Hopefully, you'll eventually broaden your horizons, or at the very least consider it

Yeah, when you compare a server built 1.5 years ago with 1 TB drives to today's 2 TB drives it sure looks expensive.

The reality is the only difference in cost is a $400 card. And yes, I agree that makes it more expensive, but it is worth it to me. Others may think otherwise.

I am well aware of the other solutions and their various pros and cons. If I thought one of them was better for me I would use it. I am not wedded to any one configuration, I just use what works best for me. On that subject one of the most attractive is Linux RAID. Except I really can't be bothered with investing the time to become a Linux expert.

I don't think much of WHS server 2003 guts, and it isn't suitable for an HTPC anyway. I chose what was best for my situation at the time I bought it.

If they come out with something in the future that fits my needs better than what I have now, I'll switch. But 1.5 years ago, and still today, HW RAID is the best for me.

Maybe Win 7 will get a true software RAID5/6 implementation someday . . .

Sorry buddy, that argument won't fly.
The $1300 cost of your setup was using today's prices.

But you did succeed in illustrating one of the major drawbacks of hw raid solution tying you into certain undesirable drives... say 1.5 years from now

I'm ok with your solution. I guess what I was trying to impart on you was that each side has it's drawbacks. Everyone needs to properly weigh the pros and cons of each and decide ultimately what works best for them for their desired objectives.

I can't believe I have to spell this out, but, 2 TB drives were not available when I built the server. If I did it today using different drives the cost difference is just the price of the card.

Yeah, changing to a different model of drive is slightly inconvenient. Just build another array with the newer, larger drives. All space still utilized, but two volumes now. Sure, it's not as convenient as JBOD.

No mass storage solution is suitable for an HTPC, including large arrays of spinning disks on hardware controllers. Well, for most people anyway. I think a much more typical approach is to separate storage from HTPC and you know that.


You conveniently underestimate the costs of running hardware RAID. As storage needs rise (as they typically do with media servers) you will need card(s) and not just a card. Few people run expensive hardware RAID controllers on budget mobos, with budget CPUs and RAM, and with cheap hard drives. Add up all that extra $ and you're way over the $300 difference in a controller card. Don't forget very large arrays are not a good idea for hardware RAID - that will eat up more parity disks. Now add the extra expense every month for energy and maintenance cost increases.

If you list your build, costs and how much usable storage you have and we compare it to what you could have if you didn't use hardware RAID I think you'll see how expensive it really is.

Now you're just backpedaling....or playing blond

What's the cost of 5 x 2TB enterprise drives?
5 x $300 = $1500 + $450 for the HBA = $1950 which gets you 8TB raw in Raid 5

For the same $1950 a WHS user gets to buy at least 10 (maybe 11) x 2TB for 20TB (22TB) raw or 10TB (11TB) with duplication on ALL shares. That's 2-3TB's more storage with DUPLICATION ON for the same money minus all the complications and simple growth path.

See how this works ?

MiBZ: See how this works ?

No, actually, I don't. In your post from yesterday you specified that the hardware RAID used $170 1TB drives, and the WHS setup used $185 2TB drives.

Now you''re specifying that the hardware RAID uses $300 enterprise 2TB drives and the WHS setup is still using ~$185 2TB drives.

Interestingly, if the hardware RAID uses $185 2TB drives, even a $400 card gives you storage parity for 4 drives (6TB) in the RAID and 6 drives (6TB) in the WHS system for the same price. Enterprise drives are not required. Mirror is not required. RAID 5 is reasonable up to 8 drives. At 8 drives (14TB) in the RAID you're looking at a second controller for the WHS system ($100) and 14 drives, for a difference of $1880 versus $2590. I prefer hardware RAID because there's an online expansion cabability, but set up a Windows Server software RAID at 8 drives from the start, you can get 14TB for $300 less.

You're putting equipment limitations on the hardware RAID that you aren't putting on the WHS system. Unless you're unbelieveably lucky, losing two drives in a WHS server is still going to lose some data if you're using folder duplication. That's slim justification for stocking the WHS system with consumer grade drives versus an 8 port RAID6 capable card that you insist must be populated with enterprise grade drives.

mnn1265: Few people run expensive hardware RAID controllers on budget mobos, with budget CPUs and RAM, and with cheap hard drives.

Few people run WHS with $100 8 port SAS or SATA cards intended for servers either. That doesn't change the fact that since PCIe RAID cards became the norm, the card is the only difference between a WHS machine and a hardware RAID that is required. Everything else is stacking the argument based on assumptions and preferences rather than requirements. You'll add cards to WHS servers that are $300 less, but pay the difference with the duplicated drive consumption when there more than 4-5 drives per controller.

If you prefer the WHS setup, fine. But don't pretend that there's no reasonable chance of the hardware RAID setup being cheaper for larger storage arrays. See how this works?

Wow, 2 posts since 2003 and you wasted one of them on me ?
I must have really stirred you up. I'm honored.

If you'd actually kept up with this monstrous 144 page thread, or one of the many other threads where of mr.lifespeed imparts his wisdom, you would know that he will only use enterprise grade drives for raid arrays.
Which is of course unnecessary with WHS because it's not a raid solution.

If you live by the sword, you can also get sliced by it

Look guys, for the avg home user WHS with duplication works very well and avoids the complications and limitations of raid by being able to expand your storage one single drive at a time with any new model and capacity at a time when you need it.

For others there is only raid and nothing else will do. For others still there is only JBOD. And the list goes on. There is no one size solution for everyone.

I agree, some people want justification for building enterprise grade servers to store movies, or to just put into their HTPC for gaming superiority (perhaps for bragging rights). Others simply want to spend what's necessary to provide some fault tolerance for their media collection. It's not as if one approach is right or wrong, it just comes down to how you want to spend your money.

Since cost seems to be (a) big part of why one should choose WHS or not, what does WHS cost? Is it free if I have windows on one of my desktop machines?

Motherboards also sometimes flake out and have to be replaced. Does WHS have restrictions on how I rebuild should I need. For example if my mobo dies, and I replace it with an identical motherboard can I just reactivate the Windows Genuine Advantage keys and keep going, or do I have to do a new install of the OS?

The 3ware card that I've been looking at appears to only be compatible with the more expensive HDs. Here's the list:

http://www.3ware.com/products/pdf/Dr...019-02RevR.pdf

The only 2TB drive on that list is the WD2002FYPS, which costs $300.

Right now, I'm contemplating between Windows Server 2008 r2 with RAID 6, or WHS. I'm buidling a server that will house 20 hard drives. Here's how I break it down.

If I went with RAID, I'd pay $6,000 for the twenty 2TB HDs, and $1100 for the 24-port 3ware card. For $7100, I'd get 36TB of RAID 6 storage. For my actual implementation, I would create 2 different RAID 6 arrays. A 6 drive array for my OS and most critical data, and a 14 drive array for all the rest. So my total storage capacity would be 32TB. If advised differently, I might put the 6 drive array in RAID 10... I'm not sure which solution would be better.

If I went with WHS, the cost would be $3,600 for 20 2TB drives, and $200 for 2 8port sata cards (the other 4 drives connecting to my MOBO). So for $3,800, I could have 40TB of unprotected data or 20TB of protected data. For my actual implementation, however, I would get 2 640GB drives (RAID 1) for the WHS operating system and primary drive, and then 18 2TB drives for the storage pool. Let's say I have folder duplication on for 6 TB (6 discs) worth of data. This would leave me 24TB (12 discs) of unprotected storage. I would use FlexRAID on this storage, cutting it down to 20 TB if I went with RAID 6 storage. Total storage would be 26TB, and total cost would be $3590 (640GB x 2 = $150, supermicro card x 2 = $200, and 2TB x 18 = $3240).

So with the software solution, I would accomplish what I want at a much cheaper price. The total capacity would be a little smaller, and the peformance would be slower. On the otherhand, if 3 drives went bad I would only lose the data on those 3 drives instead of the entire RAID 6 array.

However, I might still go with the Windows Server 2008 r2 and RAID 6 simply because learning Windows Server 2008 r2 inside and out would be gratifying and also valuable knowledge to have. I've also never setup a RAID array and would like to experience that.

Either way, I won't be getting all the drives at once. It's just easier to compare that way.

You really need to do your own calculations based on your own needs and determine what is the best solution for you. WHS is $99. Sorry, I seem to be clued out on your reasoning as to why it should be free because your run windows on your desktop. Maybe I just need more coffee


It's a Window server OS and will react in the same way. If the motherboard is replaced with the same model there should be no problem. If replaced with another type/model you will most likely have to reinstall the OS portion. This isn't specific to WHS, but also applies to most other solutions as well.

Not sure what's wrong with DDR3 other than the expense, but feel free to suggest a board with 4 PCI-E x4 that supports something different, I'm open to suggestions. It's been rather time consuming visiting every post in this thread

Regarding ZFS, I'm not investing much, ZFS is just costing me time and labor, and since I am already somewhat familiar with it, it's not costing me that much time. The hardware will be good for just as long as ZFS is around.

Eventually I will most likely move to BTRFS, but I've been following BTRFS for a while now, and by the time it is ready for production environments....well I'm not holding my breath I know it will happen, but I'm not trying to get any older waiting on it.

In addition ZFS is already heavily integrated into some major corporations...while it may not continue to receive major attention and improvements once the merger is completed, I do not see it going anywhere...just falling to the wayside.

Of course my assumptions may be inaccurate, but by the time we find out we will all be migrating our storage to the "next big thing".

Thank you for everyone's insight regarding this topic btw, It was a great resource for the first SAN I built roughly a year ago.

I've had to reinstall the OS on a WHS machine, and it had no problem rebuilding the drive pool with all data intact. Worse-case scenario, even if the rebuild did fail for some reason, all the data still exists on the individual drives and can be manually recovered.

In other words, no matter what, a motherboard failure cannot result in the loss of your data. The same cannot be said for hardware RAID (especially if you are using the built-in RAID on the MB).

Your not correct saying "Hardware Raid" will result in loss of data if your motherboard goes bad. I've changed motherboards 3 times without loss of data as Hardware Raid cards handle the array configuration data not the motherboard. If you have a card fail you can get the same brand card and not lose anything. True, You could lose data if you have a motherboard failure using it's built in software raid, but then again if you can get the same motherboard or one with the same chipset you may be able to save the data.

I didn't say it will, I said it can. There is always a chance that a RAID rebuild will fail. I don't know the exact numbers, but it can and does happen. I've personally had a RAID0 array go down and fail to rebuild.

The chance of unrecoverable failure is low with high-end hardware cards, but it still exists. There is zero chance of this happening with pseudo-RAID. No matter what happens to the rest of the system, each drive contains viable data that can be recovered with another PC.

You were talking about a motherboard failure and Hardware Raid, not a HDD failure. By the way, no Raid0 array can be rebuilt.

The only way a drive can make it to the compatibility list is if they test it. Most companies generally don't test desktop series drives since they do not recommend using them in RAID as they tend to error out. However, this by no means rules them out as not working with the card. For example, my 2TB WD Green Drives won't be found on anyone's compat. list. But I've been running them in RAID 6 just fine on my ARC-1260. With the WD drives, you can use WDTLER and WDIDLE to make them more stable for RAID environments and they run just fine. Look back through the thread and you're sure to find a number of people running the same drives on their respective cards.

So just because the drive is not on the list, doesn't mean it doesn't work just fine. Google for the desktop series drive you are looking at and your intended card to see if anyone else has tried them yet. Chances are they will be fine and save you a whole lot of cash!

But, based on first hand experience with both Areca and 3ware, if you have problems with the controller and you call for help, if you tell them you are using a drive NOT on the compatibility list, they will not help you and they will not authorize an RMA unless/until you get some compatible drives and prove it is not a drive compatibility issue.

What happens if the disk controller in your mobo starts to fail, and randomly writes zeros to your disks silently for a few months before it finally dies?

I'm sorry, but the chance of data loss is always present, on any system, be it hardware or software based. If you close your eyes to this and trust that duplication will save you then you are an idiot. If you can't lose it, back it up and keep it outside your server & preferably additionally offsite. Nothing else will prevent data loss in all circumstances.

Regarding the relative costs thing - I'm not sure exactly why Lifespeed (or any other user) would only feel the need to run Enterprise when using a hardware controller? Surely if they would only go Enterprise with a hardware card, they would stick with Enterprise drives for WHS too? To compare costs using unlike hardware is just plain wrong, and vastly reduces the credibility of your arguement. And if hardware compatibility lists are the reason behind the choice, should we not also be limited to drives on the Supermicro HCL? Why should we be able to rely on a few forum posts for our WHS system compatibility, but for the hardware card we need full manufacturer tests? Supermicro won't support you with unlisted drives any more than Areca or LSI will.

Apples to apples please...

As i'm sure has been stated in the past 144 pages, RAID does not automatically mean backups. There's no good alternative to a good backup set. That being said, it's hard to back up 1TB let alone 15... If you buy all your drives at the same time, you can generally (now days anyways) expect most of them to fail within 6-8 months of eachother. I always tell people to stagger their drive purchases for that very reason. (some say flawed logic, but hey, unless you've got access to a 300 spindle SAN for your hobby, shut it)

For home use, WHS/Software RAID will probably be adequate for 90% of the world. Yes, it can crash, yes you can loose data. You can do that with the hardware cards too. I've seen many a 3ware card go bats*it crazy and start writing parity to all drives instead of the data it is supposed to write, and not even throw a red flag.

My $.02, software raid is bang for the buck, it's come a long ways. If you've got the extra 600-800 laying around for a decent set of hardware cards, by all means use it. Neither one is perfect, and some day *WILL* leave you pissed off.

If you have a wife to keep at bey, well, i would suggest just skipping the whole DIY project and go buy a Thecus or Qnap. Much quieter, expandable, and usually as cheap as buying the whole damn thing over again.

With pseudo-RAID, any files that haven't been corrupted are still viable. With hardware RAID, you lose everything.


Because individual drive reliability is more important with hardware RAID. Since hardware RAID relies on the integrity of the array, any one failure can cause the loss of all data. In that situation, it is imperative to use the most reliable drives available, and worth it to spend more on high-reliability drives. With pseudo-RAID, you can never lose more data than is contained on a failed drive. Even if everything goes horribly wrong, any drives that are still functional can be removed from the server, hooked to another machine, and their contents recovered. Since a single (or even multiple) drive failure cannot cause the loss of all data, it is not really necessary to spend extra money on high-reliability drives. Since Pseudo-RAID systems also impart less wear than hardware RAID, it is possible that the failure rates in a given time period are similar (or perhaps even lower) using normal drives with pseudo-RAID vs enterprise drives with hardware RAID.

Now just a minute, you're completely wrong here. If the above-mentioned worst case scenario comes true (controller writes garbage to the drives) you're hosed with both SW and HW RAID. Admittedly, this is an unusual failure mode presented for the sake of argument I believe, but nothing is impossible.

I see this repeated over and over, that somehow software RAID won't allow you to lose data, and hardware RAID will. That is patently false. You can lose data with either system, but the chances are greatly reduced with either method.

Generally, you can lose one drive (two with RAID6) with no loss. Lose a second drive before the failed drive is replaced and you'll lose one drives worth or all drives of data. A rare, but not impossible, scenario.

Why do I lose everything with a hardware RAID failure but not software? How would a hardware controller magically destroy all of the data on my disks when part of a hardware array, but somehow a hardware controller failure can't affect data when the disks are in a software array?

If the controller fails when doing software RAID, you insist you can replace that controller without issue. Is it so hard to believe that I might just be able to do the same with a hardware RAID controller? Or if you cannot take the fact that this might be possible, how do you think you can guarantee being able to use a new controller without issue with software arrays?